County Council - Session - Regular Meeting

welcome everybody to the June 30th, 2026 County Council regular session. So tonight's meeting will be in hybrid format. So we'll have counselors, presenters, and other attendees either here in person, in council chambers, or on Zoom. And just as a reminder, we'll be taking a public comment at the beginning of the meeting for items that are not on the agenda. Then during a public comment, I believe it's Mr. Royale over there. I will be taking, looking on Zoom for people that like to make comments. So also would ask that people limit their comments to three minutes. or as otherwise directed, and make sure that you state your name. If you're on Zoom, if you could have your name so you could be properly addressed on Zoom, that'd be appreciated. And also ask that comments be addressed to the chair regarding the topics being considered. Our goal is to end the meeting no later than 10 PM. We'll be checking our progress at 9 PM if we're still meeting at that time. We're on to item number one, which is the opening roll call. So we're going to have two counselors on Zoom. So can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Hand. Here. Counselor Reddy.

Here.

Counselor Call. Here. Counselor Neal-Clinton. Here. Counselor Ragar.

Here.

Counselor Haberman. Here. Councillor Herman. Here. We have seven councillors present total with two remote, Councillor Neal-Clinton and Councillor Cole.

Okay. Let the record show all councillors present. Councillors Cole and Neal-Clinton are on Zoom. So next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. So if you're willing and able, please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, so now we're on to item number three, public comment, which is already mentioned, this is for items that are not on the agenda. So I think we might have some people that would like to make public comment tonight. So if you could just come up to the podium and just state your name, and we'll get the timer up for you.

Thank you, Chairman Reidy and members of the Council. My name is Greg Mello. I live in Albuquerque and am a frequent visitor here in Los Alamos. I respectfully request, on behalf of the Los Alamos study group, whom I represent, that we be provided with actual agenda time to present to you some background information and questions regarding the new and rapidly growing Los Alamos National Laboratory plutonium pit production mission and some concerns we have about it and we think that you might want to have about it. We began discussions about the future of the lab in the fall of 1989, up here, 37 years ago, and have been extensively involved with nuclear weapons policy issues and with LANL issues ever since then, in both local, national, and international settings. We believe we have done so in a factual and responsible manner. I myself am a former systems engineer, environmental regulator, and later consultant, research fellow at Princeton University, and longtime non-profit leader. For two years, we maintained an office here in Los Alamos and were members of the Chamber of Commerce. We are hearing that despite some initial and perhaps naive support for the new LANL pit mission, perhaps not fully understanding quite where it was leading, there are now considerable doubts in the community about the proposed scale and intensity of that mission. What was once less than 20 pits per year, and then a nominal 30, then at least 30 with surge to 80 in February of this year, now is at least 60 per year. Um, A single production shift became two and now 24-7 work. Safety standards have been lowered outside the normal peer review process. I have just returned from Washington, D.C., where we met with congressional and committee staff and, importantly, with the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board, the legitimacy of which, as an organization, is now denied by this organization. It is really a crisis in nuclear safety. The entire regimen of nuclear safety and oversight that was painstakingly created over the injuries that occurred around the complex, including at this lab, is now being discarded. We have some positive suggestions for the Council, which we would like to present and discuss with you in public. And meanwhile, thank you very much for your attention.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mello. Do we have anyone else present?

Hi, my name is Carolyn Cowan. First, I'd like to thank everybody for their support in the reopening of my business, Mesa Top Adventure, here in Los Alamos. We're super excited about the rebranding and about the new adventures here in town. But I am here tonight as a White Rock resident. There are quite a few of us, actually, and sometimes we get a little crazy and try to leave town, which on Friday, June 19th, was very challenging because of a few... stacking issues that happened. One was that road construction was unfortunately scheduled both east and westbound on New Mexico Highway 4, meaning that both lanes were down to one flagged lane trying to get in or out of town. Eastbound was further complicated by an accident, which totally closed it down. So we were down to half a lane trying to get out of town on a holiday. There was no communication about this. Now, I've had follow-up since that there was communication with the Public Works Department to follow up with the state as it was their construction project that was taking place, however, Issues with communication with White Rock are consistent. Just a few weeks ago at the beginning of June, I myself posted on Facebook because I was coming from White Rock up to Los Alamos, drove right past the truck route, and got stuck in main hill traffic that I could have easily avoided had there been a sign to let me know that there was construction traffic on main hill. And it's not just about the signs, it was about the general attitude towards communicating with White Rock that I find concerning. While I was stuck in traffic, I spoke with a fireman who didn't know that both east and west were closed. For construction he had not been communicated with and that's very concerning on an emergency level I also spoke with a police officer back the blue. Love you guys But what I would like to see from them is a lot more Proactivity and communicating with us helping direct traffic He did know what was going on and just seemed like there was nothing he could do about it And it I'd like to see a little bit more activity there of helping us out helping communicate boots on the ground kind of work and And I did peruse the 390 page emergency manual management manual that is available on the county website, I did not read every word someone should it is very redundant. But I did find a template for communicating traffic emergencies with the cat with the county so that procedure does exist and it should have been used that day and. So in summary, three things. One, can we follow up on not just a corrective action, but a preventative action to communicate with White Rock residents? Can we get more engagement from our emergency management professionals to make sure that they are knowing what's going on and prepared to help us handle it? And then the emergency management manual could use a little bit of review. If you'd like to know what it's like to try and get out of White Rock on a Friday, June 19th, come try out one of my new escape rooms. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cowan. Do we have anyone else present who would like to make public comment?

Hello, my name is Heike Wilcox, and I'm not sure if I'm addressing something that will be on the agenda later, but it's regarding the cameras in town and how they're going to be utilized.

Yeah, we'll have that on the agenda later. If you don't mind waiting for that topic or... Is that okay? Yep. Okay, thank you. Okay, anyone else? Okay, Mr. Rell, can you check on soon?

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

Not seeing any chair. Okay, thank you. So item number four is probably the agenda. So is there a counselor willing to make a motion regarding the agenda?

I move that we approve tonight's County Council agenda as presented.

Is there a second? Second. We have a motion by Councillor Haviman, second by Councillor Rieger. Okay, not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Haviman.

Yes.

Counselor Wrighty?

Yes.

Counselor Hand? Yes. Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Rigor?

Yes.

Counselor Herman? Yes. Counselor Neal-Clinton? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, I'll let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to item 5, which is presentation proclamations and recognitions. 5A is 218-46. It's the America the Beautiful, performed by Lads and Lasses of Enchantment. So thank you all for being here.

in between and in by human tears Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen See from sea to shining sea of America.

So thank you for being here to perform that. They'll be performing at the 4th of July event in Overlook Park on the weekend. So I think I'll refrain from any singing.

OK.

So the next item is 5B21883-26 Proclamation Recognizing July 4th, 2026, as the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. So I think we have Counselor Herman read this one.

Thank you, Chair. Proclamation. Whereas July 4th, 2026 marks 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when representatives of the United States of America declared these united colonies as free and independent states, And whereas this bold declaration and the sacrifices given by countless individuals during the Revolutionary War birthed a new nation founded on the ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom for all. And whereas generations of people have come together to strive for a more perfect union where individuals from around the world can find community, prosperity, equality, and peace. And, whereas, during this semi-quincentennial, we celebrate the achievements of our nation and reflect on the past 250 years to build a more just and equitable society that reflects our collective strength, ingenuity, resilience, and compassion. Now, therefore, on behalf of the Council of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, I do hereby proclaim July 4th, 2026 to be the 250th anniversary of American independence. in Los Alamos County, and I ask our citizens to honor the birth of our nation through displays of patriotism by raising the American flag, participating in celebrations across the community, enjoying the Friday night concert at Ashley Pond Park, and enjoying the 4th of July spectacular at Overlook Park, demonstrating how we can all uphold the ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom for all. Dated this 30th day of June, 2026, signed Randall Wrighty, Chair, Los Alamos County Council.

Thank you, Council Member Herman. So we have Linda Carol Ault is here to accept the proclamation.

I have about three minutes on here. I don't know, you all can't really see me, so okay. The Fourth of July holiday this year is no ordinary day. It represents 250 years. 250 years since the colonists declared independence from the tyranny of the English crown. Let that sink in for a moment. The declaration was read to the public, assembled out behind the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia, which continues to stand this day. The colonists banded together unity for the declaration to grant the colonists power over their own affairs. They had had enough of the increasing taxation by the crown rule by a king. This was not about politics. This was about independence from the control exerted by the mother country whose power was concentrated in one individual. This country went on to establish our Constitution in 1783. After much debate over addressing the issues of the colonial period, the signatories declared a new form of government, also known as the Grand Experiment, to place the power of government with the people, not a king. It was structured as a representative democracy not seen elsewhere in the world. The power was divided into three branches with intention to put checks and balances, thereby protecting the citizenry from the dangerous consolidation of power. The vehicle, the vote, the strength of a unified citizenry. Today, 250 years ago this Saturday, we continue to be torn apart by a divisive and destructive government. Among many of our rights, the voting rights law has been decimated by the Supreme Court. We are divided, thus, by the design of power concentrated into one person. As often quoted, united we stand, Divided, we fall. This individual continues to divide this nation along political lines, a division that has cost the relationships in families, friends, and neighbors. One could say our grand experiment is failing. I submit to you that restoring unity is the one direction we have to recover our government as envisioned by the colonists. It is critical that as a community, we shed our political ideology and focus rather what we share in common. Stop looking at our neighbors as enemies. This division is designed to do just that, focus on what we share in common, not on division. and political ideology. Voting for our government representatives has never been more critical. Look carefully at our candidates, evaluate their fitness and character. Ask, does this candidate unify us or divide us? We have the opportunity this November to have our voices heard. This is not about political ideology or affiliation. It is about we, the people. For the sake of our nation, do not let your vote slide. So take a moment amid the celebrations this Saturday to ponder these remarks. Seek ways to strengthen our communities and focus on what we share as citizens. Dispense with the political noise and divisive remarks. in our public sphere. They are not helpful. They are designed to break us apart. Thank you.

Okay, so we're on to the next item. So it's 5C21158-26, proclamation designating July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month in Los Alamos County. So we have Councilor Rieger to read this one.

Thank you, Chair. Whereas parks improve the mental health of visitors by increasing cognitive performance, alleviating illnesses, and providing the therapeutic benefits of reconnecting us with nature and each other, and whereas recreational programs encourage physical activity by maintaining hiking trails, swimming pools and ice rinks, organizing sports and providing activities that integrate movement into the lives of residents every week. And whereas parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country by providing economic prosperity and healthy meals, nutrition services and education activities critical to childhood development. And whereas providing quality parks and facilities requires constant effort from daily maintenance to large construction projects as demonstrated through the rich list of events offered, the recent accessibility work at Pinion Park and 37th Street Playground, the repairs to the main pool at the Larry R. Walker Aquatic Center, the upgrades to the ice rink, and so much more. And whereas Los Alamos Community Services has been named a 2026 National Gold Medal Award finalist for excellence in parks and recreation management, placing our parks and recreation system above the top agencies in the country. And whereas the House of Representatives has designated July as Park and Recreation Month, Now, therefore, on behalf of the Council of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, I do hereby proclaim July 2026 to be Parks and Recreation Month in Los Alamos County, and I ask our citizens to get outside and enjoy the multitude of special programs, activities, and celebrations planned through our Community Services Department. dated this 30th day of June, 2026, Randall Wrighty, Chair, Los Alamos County Council.

Thank you, Councilor Rieger. So I know we have Wendy Parker. This is Catherine in other shoes. Did you want to come up and make remarks? Yes.

Thank you, Chair, Reidy, and council members for recognizing Parks and Recreation Month for the month of July. We come to work every day to meet the needs of the community and to be involved in our community. So thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Where do you want to stand for the picture?

thank you

Okay, thank you. So we'll go on to the next item, which is item number six. This is public comment for items on the consent agenda. So is there any public comment for any of those items? Not seeing anyone present here. Mr. Rell, can you check on Zoom for us?

Attendee with the initials KB, you are now unmuted. Please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes.

Hi, did you say public comment for items on the agenda?

For items, we have a consent agenda. So it's, there's items A through D. So we're not up to the main agenda yet.

Okay, gotcha. Sorry. Thank you.

Okay, no problem. Thanks for asking.

Not seeing additional hands, Chair.

Okay. So is there a councillor interested in making a motion on the consent agenda? Councillor Herman?

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

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so we have motion by Councillor Herman, second by Councillor Hand. Okay, not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll? Councillor Cole?

Yes. Councillor Regor?

Yes.

Counselor Hand? Yes. Counselor Haveman?

Yes.

Counselor Herman? Yes. Counselor Neal Clinton? Yes. Counselor Bridey?

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. We'll let the record show the motion passes unanimously. We're now on to introduction of ordinances. We have two introductions tonight. So item 8, introduction of ordinances, 8A, OR1139-26. It's the Instructional Incorporated County of Los Alamos, Ordinance Number 757. So this is an ordinance proposing amendments to Article 3, Section 305, Section 305.3, to be submitted to the electorate for adoption or rejection at the general election. It's relating to standing boards and commissions and ad hoc committees. So is there a councillor willing to read this one into the record?

Thank you, Chair. I introduce without prejudice incorporated County of Los Alamos ordinance number seven 57, an ordinance proposing amendment to article three section three zero five subsection three zero five dot three 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 it's published as provided in the county charter.

Thank you, Council Haffman. And I believe the public hearing for this item is scheduled for July 14th, is that correct? We're just double checking, but I think that's correct.

The staff agenda says July 7th.

Okay, so it's going to be, okay. Yes, that makes sense, okay. Thank you. Clarification. So item eight B is OR1141-26. This is introduction of Incorporated County Los Alamos ordinance number 758, ordinance proposing amendments article five, section 509 of the charter of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos to be submitted to the electorate for adoption or rejection at the general election on November 3rd. And it's relating to the priority of budgeted expenses. This is for utilities. So is our counselor willing to read this one into the record?

I introduce without prejudice incorporated County of Los Alamos, Los Alamos, ordinance number 758, an ordinance proposing amendment to Article Five, Section 509 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 priority of budgeted expenditures and ask the staff to assure it's published as provided in the county charter.

Thank you, Councilor Edmund. So this will also be on July 7th for public hearing. Okay, so now we're on to item nine, which is public hearings we have tonight. So 9A is CO0746B. It's Incorporated County Los Alamos Code Ordinance Number 02-380, an ordinance amending the Department of Public Utilities water service rate schedules, Chapter 40, Article 3. I'm not going to read all the different sections, but that's the gist of the item. And so I think we have Ms. Gentry here to comment.

Good evening, Chair Reiting and members of Council. Mr. Rayl, are you going to bring up my presentation? So I am going to present Water Rate Ordinance 02380 tonight. This ordinance was introduced to BPU on April 15th. It was approved by the Board of Public Utilities on May 20th and introduced to Council on June 9th. A 10-year forecast for the water utility fund was presented as part of our 2728 budget. This proposed rate increases the design and is designed to generate the revenue necessary to sustain current operations and build cash reserves. And those cash reserves are required for future infrastructure investments. We are proposing two consecutive 8% adjustments for FY27 and FY28 for residential, multifamily, commercial, county, and school customers. This ordinance also includes some changes or additions of the Paito Mountain service area, which was added for the fire protection project. Service charge has been added for irrigation and non-potable water services. There's changes to our bulk water sales to Los Alamos National Laboratory. And I'll go over those in a little more detail as we go into the presentation. So on this page is an overview of our services. Water customers. So this is based on a 3 year average. We have about 4,800 households in Los Alamos, which is about 66% of our customers and 34% of them are in White Rock at about 2,500 customers. Los Alamos County has about 7,000 residential customers, 84 multifamily, 288 commercial, 91 county and 28 schools. On the next page. So as mentioned in the previous slide, there are 84 multifamily units located within Los Alamos County. Multifamily accounts are when more than one home is built under one meter and one account. Examples of this are condos and apartment buildings. And so there's a breakdown of the different types of multifamily homes we have in Los Alamos. We have about 55 apartment buildings. So about 19 condos, seven duplexes or quads. We have two mobile home parks and one senior living. On the next slide. So this is our residential customers, single family that fall under our peak and non-peak season. So as mentioned before, we have about 7,000 customers that fall under a tiered water rate during our summer months. Our peak season is May through September. The two charts in the middle of the page show that thousands of gallons of water sold and it's split between White Rock and Los Alamos and their peak and non-peak water sales per thousand gallons. The chart on the bottom is showing the FY25 average monthly residential usage per 1,000 gallons for both single and multifamily homes. And then that chart is also split between Los Alamos and White Rock usage. Okay, so this page is our residential peak tiered water rates. So there's three tiers. Our first tier is the first 9,000 gallons. The second tier is 9,000 gallons to 15,000 gallons. And the third tier is any usage above 15,000 gallons. The green chart on the right is a breakdown from last summer's usage. And about 65% of our customers fell under Tier 1. 15% of our customers hit Tier 2. And 20% of customers hit Tier 3. The next slide. So this slide is taking a look at our neighboring communities. For this, we looked at the city of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, and Española. The charts and calculations we used to come up with the cost is the rates for the surrounding communities through June 30th, 2026. It looks like the city of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County appear to be year-round water tiered rates. And based on our research, Espanola hasn't had a new water rate in a while, but they do have a 5% increase coming in July. The next slide. Okay, so this graph shows our potable water consumption per 1,000 gallons, and this includes all our rate classes. Projections for sales through June 30th, 2026 is going to be about 1,080,000 gallons of water sold. The FY27 and 28 budget was calculated using the five-year average of sales and revenues that we built our budget out of, and our sales was estimated to be 1,050,000 gallons of water. The red bars are indicating the total water delivered, and the blue is what was budgeted. The next slide shows our potable water sales by dollar. And this chart represents the water that we sell from water production to water distribution and any sales to LANL and N3B. So these projections were calculated through March of 26, but our most recent analysis of sales show that it'd probably be a lot closer to what we anticipated for this year's sales. The next slide. So this slide is our non-potable water sales in thousands of gallons. And during our budget process, we used a five-year average of our sales. And we did notice a dip in sales, and we calculated our budget with the new estimate. And we estimated it to about 97,300 gallons of non-potable water sold. Previous estimates were at 136,500 gallons. So we dropped that in our 27 budget. The next slide. So this graph is showing our non-potable water sales in dollars. During our analysis, we discovered that the dollars presented in our 26th budget didn't match the projected sales, so that's why the two graphs look a little off with the dollars and the sales. So the next slide. So this page might look a little familiar. This came from our budget book, and this was presented back in April during budget. So this chart shows, one thing that I could point out is that the chart shows our operating and maintenance expenses, which is the blue bar. And that's pretty much holding steady for the next 10 years, because this is a 10-year forecast. They do show some small inflationary increases, but it's holding pretty steady. And it's kind of similar to all the other different types of expenses listed in this chart. The next, so Mr. Ryle, can I have you skip two slides? I'm sorry, I had these out of order. So moving to this one. So this is our water fund revenues and expenditures. This shows our revenues compared to expenditures by month for FY26. May and June in this chart are projected. we haven't closed out those months. So the fiscal year expenditures kind of have a paced our revenues, mostly due to the several CIP projects that are going on right now, which include like our Denver Stills, the Jemez Mountain fire protection, the water production portable generator, and the Landau 18 inch water line replacement. You'll notice in November and February, our revenues look really large. Those are due to loan grant and external reimbursements, largely due to the Jemez Mountain Fire Protection Project. The next slide. Can you go back? That one. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Royale. So this is showing our water fund expense by type. Sixty-four of our expenditures is falling within our professional services and capital projects, and that's due to our enhanced capital improvement programs and reliability that we've been working on. The second largest expenditure is our cost of water, which is at about 14%. And then our IDCs are in our fund department charges at 10%. And the cost of water is the cost of the water sold from water production to water distribution. So go back to, there we go, thank you. So on this page, we have, Sorry, I'm sorry. So on this page, we have listed our proposed consumption charge per 1,000 gallon. And this is for the different classes that we have, which is our single family, multifamily, and commercial county and schools. This also includes the tiered water rates that happen during peak season, which is May through September again. The spread between the different tiers is 10%. And this includes additional. The reason for this is includes additional costs for us to service during these months for our summer when we do have to run like a 24 hour, seven day a week service to keep up with the water usage during this time frame. The cost per 1,000 gallons is at 8% from our current rate. And this is in line with our FY27 and 28 two-year budget cycle. So the next page is our proposed non-potable service charge and cost per 1,000 gallons. And this includes an 8% adjustment to the cost of water. In this class, for this ordinance, as of today, we do not charge a service charge, and we're proposing to add a service charge to our non-potable sales. And this... So service charge is about half, it's not about, it is half the cost of our potable service charge. And the reason for this is these are seasonal sales. So it's about six months out of the year. And the service charges are to help recover costs for administration and billing as well as our AMI, our advanced metering. So this slide is showing our proposed bulk rate for sales from water production to water distribution. The cost of water on this page is also represented in that pie chart at the 14%, just so you see where that matches that. The proposed rate for this class per 1,000 gallons as well as the service charge is an 8% adjustment for both FY27 and FY28. Okay, so this is one of our new rates that have been added to this ordinance, O2380, and this is including irrigation meters, snowmaking, and the energy charge for 1,000 gallons for the Poteetha Mountain Ski Area. So the cost per 1,000 gallons is aligned with our commercial customer rate, so that per 1,000 gallons is what our proposed commercial rate is for FY27 and 28. The service charge that's being proposed also is half the cost of the potable water service charges. And this is again due to snow making and irrigation seasons are about half the year. And the service charge again is to recover costs for billing and AMI services. Now, the bottom of it is the energy charge per 1,000 gallons, and it is to account for the electricity it will use to pump the water 1,800 feet to the 250,000 gallon water storage tank that's located up on Pajarito Mountain. And in order to calculate that, we used POT ETHO booster station number two data to come up with the energy and demand costs for this particular rate. So this... slide is showing our proposed rate for the bulk water delivery sales to Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory currently purchases approximately 26% of our water system's total water production. And we came up with this number due to being calculated using the past five years of our sales to Los Alamos National Lab. This new calculated rate for the cost per 1,000 gallons to LANL is currently is up 33%. And this large rate adjustment to LANL is because it incorporates our debt service and our contingency cash reserves. And that's due to the amount of loans that have been recently issued to build a new well and replace water production lines. So it also includes costs for operation and maintenance, IDCs, administrative allocations, and capital. Bulk service charge includes the cost for admin, replacement costs, and meter reading, and is in the water service contract, and is an includable cost to Los Alamos National Lab. This proposed rate change, Okay, sorry. So this page is demonstrating how the calculation for the cost of bulk delivery to LANL was calculated. So we used the past five years of actual expenditures, and if you'll notice in the blue, we included contingency cash reserves, which is our emergency reserves, and our debt service reserves. Since the previous ordinance was passed, new debt has been added and we need to have the reserve to pay back the debt. So the new rate to recover the cost for our bulk sales to LANL is proposed at $7.45 per 1,000 gallons in FY27. So this chart is showing how we came up with the service charge. So we did take a day's worth of a billing person, a meter reading, and to do some meter calibrations. And we did a percentage of how much of that day it takes to do those services to Bill Lannell. And then we also took the different vehicles that it takes to get to those locations. And we came up with... the cost per month to charge them for the service charge so they can um cover the cost of a billing So the proposed rate, we, this proposed rate, we are expecting to restore the water funds cashflow to a more sustainable level to fund essential repairs, replacements, and ongoing operations to fund our cash reserves, which with this and what we presented in, um, budget was to bring to a positive cashflow and FY 29. And then, um, And then we have future rate increases based on our 10-year average at 7% in 29 and 30 and looking at 5% to 3% in the next eight years. Mr. Shelton is attending the council meeting tonight remotely. And just so you guys know that. And with that, we are open for any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you, Mrs. Gentry. So we have any technical or clarifying questions from Councilor Hand?

Thank you, Chair. Who uses the non-potable water?

other than the ski area? That's a good question. So non-potable is mostly, right now, county. The parks are using that. We're looking at, maybe in the future, some of the schools will be using non-potable water.

Regarding the infrastructure for non-potable water, I was aware that the county uses it and I'm thinking, are we charging ourselves for increasing the water rates to ourselves, to the county? Yes. Okay. And then with the schools, do they have any infrastructure for using non-potable water?

Mr. Shelton, I'm not sure about that.

Chair and Councilor Hand, the schools currently are not using non-potable water. However, we have been in meetings to convert potentially the middle school in the next couple of years over. So the provision of this rate ordinance allows for us to do that.

So if we convert the middle school over to non-potable water, that means they're using potable water for irrigation?

That's correct. And it's at a higher cost, obviously.

Right, right. So they basically get a discount.

If they move to non-potable, yes.

Okay. Is that a project that the county does, is create that infrastructure for them?

In the case of the middle school, the infrastructure is there. The school district has a couple of plumbing connections to complete to make that transfer. And then I think we add a non-potable meter to measure that water that you use. So it's a future project.

Okay. And can you remind me... I would assume we have a long-term plan that basically identifies the repair and replacement for not only our water, but all our utilities, right?

Yes, we have our 10-year capital plan. And then we have other planning documents for long-term water supply, non-potable water expansion, etc.,

Okay, so in that capital plan, we have some idea when we need to start making repairs or replacements to certain parts of the infrastructure across the county. And so right now, this proposed increase is to keep us in good standing so that when we are getting ready to do these repairs and replacements, we will have the funding available, right?

That's correct. Well, you know, more importantly, we always pursue the low interest loan programs through the state. However, we have to have, as Joanne mentioned, debt service and cash available to issue those loans. They call it debt service coverage ratio. And those are the things we look at closely as we do our long term capital planning.

Okay. And I'm sorry to keep on it. I'll just, I'll make it one more question. Okay. I'm sorry. So when we were looking at the graphs in your presentation, it looks like usage is slightly down this year compared to previous years. Yet we're raising the rates and You know, when I'm comparing it to what happened with gas, where we have less usage, increased rates. Why? Because we still need to maintain everything, even though we're using it less. Is that kind of what's happening here, too? Is we still have to maintain everything, even though people are using less water. We're encouraging conservation of water, et cetera, like, you know, the other utilities. But then we have to pay more for it.

um chair righty counselor yes and we we have seen a little bit of a dip in water sales over the last few years and in the previous years um for budget they were budgeted a little high and we weren't meeting that target so when we did the budget this year like i said we did a five-year average and kind of dropped it down to more of a um sales of what we probably will hit versus a higher level of sales that we were not hitting. So yes, it does, based on the budget, they were a little bit higher than we were, our target was a little higher than we were meeting. So during this budget season, we tried to align it a little bit more to sales. Okay.

I guess it's really hard to sell to the public that you're conserving, you're doing what we want you to do, and now we're going to charge you more money for less product. Are there any, I would imagine that, you know, we're not the only county in the entire United States who is experiencing this. you know, are there benchmarking programs or other types of programs where you can get ideas from other communities that are going through something similar and learning how to make this more feasible for the public? You know, I mean, it just seemed like I'm saving and now you're charging me more. So, you know, there must be a way that we could address this and, you know, what have other communities done? Do we know, are we comparing?

Chair Reiting and Councilor Hand, we, I'm not aware of any, Mr. Shelton might be, but we do look at our surrounding communities and kind of see where we fall in line with our neighboring communities. That is the only thing that I'm aware of. And we do present that every time with an ordinance, also with our budget season as well. Mr. Shelton, are you aware?

Chair and Councilor Hand, the only thing I want to add is the challenge with Los Alamos is our community is not growing very quickly. You'll see around the country some communities grow. And while I think everyone's conserving water, we follow pretty close to the national standard for water usage per capita. But we're not growing our pie, so to speak, as far as additional customers. So we still have the same number of homes to serve, the same miles of water line and number of wells to maintain. And that's the challenge we have with our rates. We have aging infrastructure and just to maintain a reliable system is more costly than inflation at this point in time.

And I keep on looking at, as we expand, We build more infrastructure to handle more people and more usage. Then we have more things to maintain. We have more things to repair, although it's newer. The new things we're building are newer, but we're just kind of going through, we're spinning through this quagmire of, you know, how do we make any utility costs lower? It's like it always goes up.

I'm not sure that was a question.

It sort of was. How do we make utility costs lower when we're doing this kind of building and all that? There's probably not an answer tonight, but I'm just wondering if Because this continues to happen, is this something that we can look at and maybe consider what other communities are doing so that we can address this in a way that's a little easier for people to stomach?

um chair righty and counselor hand i'm we can look at we can do some more in in depth kind of what other areas are doing so yeah we could do that unfortunately i don't have that information for you i understand and and uh yeah i wouldn't have expected you to but thank you for thank you my question thank you okay thank you counselor hand i saw council nina clinton had a question thank you chair

So I have a question that's, it pulls on the strings that Councilor Hand raised. So if the middle school is in a position to now start looking at non-potable water, is there a reason why the other schools are not looking at that? Because if there's a cost savings, I would think that we would look to spread that across.

Chair, Counselor Neil Clinton, the school right now has one project in mind. They want to test it out and see, you know, there's different maintenance needs when you move to non-potable. So they want to, you know, dip their toe in the water, so to speak, slowly test it out. We do have capability to expand down the road, but this seemed to be the first logical site to consider.

So what I'm hearing you say is that they're using the middle school as a proof of concept. Right.

Yes. And then, you know, down the road, the fields near the high school would probably be the next candidate or the Pueblo complex.

But are all of the schools eligible if this proof of concept works?

To the extent we have water availability, we continue to do improvements to our booster pump station. For example, this year, we added water storage down in Bio Canyon. We probably need additional storage before we expand a little further. And that we apply for grants and try to build up this system over time.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you both.

Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Neill-Clinton. Do we have any other... Councillor Rieger?

Thank you, Chair. I was just kind of wondering, did I hear that there was non-potable water to the ski hill? I think that's potable, right?

It is potable.

Yeah.

I'm sorry. I may have misstated, but it is potable water. I'm sorry.

I don't know who misstated, but I want to make that clear because I think the ski lodge uses the same water in all of their facilities, right? We can't ship a non-potable water.

You're correct. I'm sorry if I misstated that. It is potable.

No, I don't think you... I just started to get confused what things were being said. So then the question I had was, you still have the accelerated rates in there. And I've always wanted to know why residential customers who use more get billed more when our other big consumers like the lab, we bill them less as a rate. And everybody, we have all these big customers. We always bill them less for having the big meter and the total consumption being up. But then when you get to the residential, if somebody's like, might be a gardener growing their own food, maybe they're actually really farming in the backyard because we have big lots. There are people that could do that. You're charging them extra for water when they use more. And I've always puzzled, what is the rationale for that? What is their, why are they getting essentially punished, you know, for watering plants that might be edible? I mean, They're growing their own food, and I remember we've had this argument before. We had it years ago, and we had, was it the Sustainability Board put forward that recommendation? Somebody did. Why is that even staying in here?

Chair Reidy, go ahead.

Chair Reidy and Councilor Rieger, there's several different reasons. One is when we submit a water and energy conservation plan to the state engineer, and one of the water conservation measures is offering a tiered water rate. And so that's one piece where we have a little different tier between the usages. The other Joanne Gentry mentioned was we have to have a staff up of our water team to work the graveyard and overnight hours to fill water tanks. And that costs money with shifted differential costs, as well as We're buying electricity during peak times to fill those tanks. And if you saw the water usage charts in the residential, generally homeowners use twice as much water during the irrigation season as they do in the winter. And that's just the nature of outdoor watering, gardening, lawns, whatever it may be. We have been using our program for conservation with rain barrel catchment and other things to give other gardeners relief on that. And we're offering in July a program through PEAK to do that. Every little bit helps. So that's what I can offer, why it's different.

Yeah, I think the real reason it passed was the state gave some incentive and they wanted the tiered water system.

Right, and we take advantage of their low to no interest loans and other things that they require these plans be in place to participate in the loan programs.

Okay, so... So then what is that percentage increase over two years here? It is 20%, is that right?

It's 8% per year.

8% per year. But you, I wish I could hear a good reason what the inflation is. I mean, sort of what people are doing is using less water. Even though it's a hot year, it looks like they're using less. We've had dry winters. What... Why are they being – it always works out the same way with everything else, the same discussion we had two weeks ago. Prices go up because they're conserving.

Right. And I think we showed a pie chart that says majority of our cost is capital improvement programs, and that's the main reason. Those costs are fixed. They're not – not related to water usage. When you replace a water main, that's a 20 to 30-year repayment term.

Well, that's... Well, anyway, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Rieger. Councilor Haffeman?

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Ms. Gentry, for the presentation. I know this is not easy for DPU or BPU, and I know BPU has reviewed this thoroughly as well. My questions are a little varied. I guess I'll just start with maybe it's the pie chart Mr. Shelton was just referring to. There's a slide called Water Expenditures by Type. It's a pie chart, and I think it says that the Biggest chunk of the pie chart is about two-thirds of the expenses are for professional and contractual services. So I was just kind of looking for what examples of that might be. And maybe I'm hearing you say, well, that's for contracts to contractors who do things like install new water lines and water mains for us. Is that an example of that chunk of expenditure? And what other examples might there be?

so chair righty counselor haverman um yes it does include any contractual services that we do have but it also includes any of the capital improvement projects that we're doing such as like the 18-inch water line that we're replacing to lannell um the denver sales project that we're working on it includes all of those capital improvement projects that are going on um right now so

Is there a way to tell us of that roughly 65% of the department's water fund expenditures, how much of it is actual infrastructure, you know, those kinds of projects you just named versus maybe professional consulting contracts?

I think we could pull those.

I mean, just roughly. Could you say that 90% of that 65% is probably the contract costs to get the infrastructure and capital improvement projects done that we need to provide water to our community.

If you'll give us a second, Councilor Haberman, we might be able to pull that up if you want to go to your next question. We can come back to that if you'd like.

That's a good idea. Thank you. And then... One.

Okay.

Oh, no, go ahead, Mr. Shelton. Sorry.

On the pie chart with cost of water, you'll see that it's about 20% or 14%. I'm sorry, 14%. That's the cost to make the water that's passed on to the customer. So the amount of water used is a smaller portion of the cost overall. It's our capital improvement program replacing our aging infrastructure is where most of the water rates increases that need to support that capital plan, the enhanced plan.

Thank you. And that's kind of what I really wanted to make sure I understood correctly. And, you know, along those lines, I guess, at the last Boards and Commissions Luncheon, one of your board members, Mr. Nockley, gave a nice overview of what's going on in DPU and related to water. He talked about some of the maintenance and replacement of the system infrastructure. And the examples he gave were, you know, replacing many of the old cast iron pipes, the Denver Steeles project, as you mentioned, et cetera. And I just was kind of looking for more examples to help us, you know, maybe all feel a little bit more comfortable with maybe the long range investment that's needed to maintain this service.

Chair, Wrighty and Councillor Haverman, I don't have a list of all of the current projects. We could, maybe Mr. Shelton is aware of more than that I listed in my presentation.

Yeah, that's okay. I didn't even think you'd have an exact list, and I can't remember from the capital list either. But just, you know, you gave a couple examples, but, you know, it's really just to kind of help understand and justify the rationale behind the 8% per year increase when it looks like a bulk of it is in that category.

Right.

And to, you know, have the debt service, you know, met, et cetera.

Great. And then, Chair Reidy, Councilor Haberman, Richard Valerio, our business operations manager for DPU, did calculate about 85% of the capital projects in the pie chart is CIP, which is capital improvement projects. So about 85% of that green portion is capital.

Okay. That's helpful. I appreciate that. Thank you. Did he have something else he wanted to add?

Okay, so Richard pulled up our capital projects as well for FY26 or 27. So we have like the Denver Stills repainting Potitho Tank 4, the transmission line replacement phase one on Potitho Road, Potitho Well Number 3 replacement well design are some of the ones that are coming up in FY27.

Great. That's a good refresher. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Let's see, one second chair, got a couple more questions. And I guess along those lines, if we don't have a cash reserve fund, which it looks like we're gonna try to build up over the next 10 years to fund the debt service for the loans for these projects, if I have that right, correct me if I don't. If you don't have that reserve fund, does that mean that, well, you tell us, what does that mean?

Chair Reiting, Councilor Haverman. So we do want to build up our debt coverage reserve partially or mostly for the reason is that we do, in order to get any kinds of loans, we do have to have a debt coverage ratio of like 1.3 or better. And that is part of our strategic planning with the board as well. So in order to have that and to meet that goal, we do need to build the capital reserve up. And that's kind of a driving force in there.

And if it were not built up, if a rate increase was not approved and we couldn't build that up, what are the ramifications?

I'll try to answer that and Philo may step in and either correct me or add to it. If we aren't able to build our cash reserves and meet that, we would have to probably delay some capital projects that we wouldn't be able to get grants and loans for because we're not meeting that debt coverage ratio required by those entities to borrow that money. And the money that we're borrowing within the water fund are low interest loans, and a lot of it is covered by grants. So in order to get those, you do have to have a higher debt coverage ratio. And a lot of the loans that we are getting are about 1%. And so that helps save money right there too as well.

Wonderful. Thank you. Then I want to move on to Pajarito Ski Area. You mentioned, I think, that LANL uses, if I have this right, LANL uses about 24%, 25% of our total water production?

Chair Reiting and Council have them about 26%. 26%. Yes.

And then what would you guess is the projected use by Parito Mountain ski area of our total? 1%, 5%?

I'm going to let Mr. Shelton answer that because I don't know that answer. Okay.

That's okay. No. So we have a development agreement with Pajarito Ski Area, and the maximum they can use is 188 acre feet, which is about 10% of what LANL uses.

10% of what LANL uses, so that means it must be two? Thank you, Mr. Chair. About 3% of our total water. Thank you. Okay, so along those lines then... I mean, I think that the water for Parito, there's, there's multiple, there's going to be multiple applications of that water, right? It's, it's some of the potable use like in their restaurant or cafe and bathrooms and drinking fountains. Some of it's for snowmaking and some of it's for fire suppression, right? I mean, that's the whole, that's to me, my recollection, that's the gist of the Jemez Mountain Fire Protection Project that has multiple funding sources and has electrical and water parts to it. But, But we're going to start charging PAR RETO now, a private entity, private business, but their water use benefits not only them and their skiing customers, but also benefits the community in terms of, and the region really, for water suppression. So is that taken into account when we're trying to calculate what we're going to charge them for their water demand?

I'll let Mr. Shelton answer that.

Chair, righty, councilor, have them in. We did set up the water rate just to be revenue neutral. They pay a commercial rate like all our commercial customers, plus the energy charge to raise the water up to the ski area. Then snowmaking, because it's a seasonal use like irrigation is in the summer, they're charged that irrigation meter rate for snowmaking, but they have other meters for their lodge facilities and and i think other maintenance facility they'll pay what every commercial uh customer would pay for water use uh you know in the lodge or their maintenance yard buildings etc so the benefit to the community we do have other agreement as far as filling the pond up the county is responsible through the development agreement to do the first fill, keep it topped off at the top of the mountain. And then as they use it, they have to refill it. So there's other provisions for the fire protection element that's not related to these rates, but part of the structure of the agreement.

That's good. Thank you. That's a good refresher on that. Appreciate it. And those were all my questions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Abbott. Do we have any other? Are there more questions? Councillor Hann?

I do. Thank you, Chair. So we're talking about Pajarito ski area. And so they're using potable water. They're filling up their tank. And then all the water is pumped up to the reservoir up on the top of the mountain, right? And then they're using that water to make snow?

That's right.

Okay. And is it still potable water when it's in the reservoir?

No. Once it leaves the 250,000 gallon tank and gets pumped up to the reservoir, that's non-potable water at that point because you can't, it doesn't flow backwards by gravity into the distribution system. It's separate.

Okay, so it becomes non-potable water even though it originated as potable water. And then we're charging them for the potable water instead of the non-potable water that they're using?

Yes. We make potable water for them that they're using. I think it's... We wouldn't charge non-potable water rates at the ski area once it's pumped up. That's just the cost of bringing that water up the hill is different than treating it at the wastewater plant and then repumping it back to the community. It's a completely different treatment system and costs associated with serving the community. So the model that's before you tonight is the cost it takes to bring the water up to the ski area to the 250,000 gallon tank. And then the ski area chooses to fill their reservoir with that water. We did have extensive discussions during design, you know, running maybe a second pipeline to reclaim water up to the mountain, but it was just cost prohibitive given all the capital costs to run two pipelines.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Rieger, do you have another question?

Well, just about the pie chart. It was on page 14. And there's no real capital outlay shown on there. Is that a mistake, or is it just a very thin slice? Because almost all of it is the green, right? And there are like seven categories. There's no capital outlay slice there.

Yeah, let me see.

Or is it just very thin, like less than a percent? You can't see it.

Sure, right. Council Rieker. The reason for that is all of the CIP projects is budgeted in professional contractual services. The small amount for capital outlay is for capitalized equipment. So it's a different category. CIP doesn't fall under capital outlay.

Oh, I'm kidding. No, I... Go ahead.

It's the way the budget categories are set up.

Most of the capital projects are folded into professional contractual.

And capital outlay, like I mentioned, is anything for capitalized equipment that falls above the capitalized threshold. Which in 26 is probably zero then.

Maybe it's zero. Very minimal.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor Rieger. So I did have a couple questions. So I first wanted to see what options did the department and board consider other than what we're seeing tonight? Did they look at any other options of just doing a one-year increase or having the increases over some more length of time, things like that? So what other alternatives were considered by the board and department?

In this case? Chair Reidy, I don't believe we presented any other alternatives to the board. This is what we presented to the board back in April, which included a review of all the additional costs for non-potable servicing land or providing water to land and including the costs for the Podito Mountain Service Area.

Okay. So the... All the water rates are, we would probably say, are strictly compensatory. Is that correct? I mean, there's no revenue or profit built into any of them. Is that correct?

No. When we built this, we looked at all of our expenditures and our cash reserves and built it around what our future costs were for the two years.

Okay. And then on one of the charts, the one that went out the 10 years, I don't know if I see a page number here. A 10 year forecast.

Yeah. Page 11, I believe. There you go.

That's the one. So am I correct to understand that there's a line at the top, and then there are percentages above the line?

Okay, so yes, Chair Reidy, the line on the top is our revenue proceeds, and the percentage is what we presented in the 10-year forecast during the budget season of the percentage rate adjustment that we were projecting for the next 10 years, which is in FY27 and 28 is the 8% rate adjustment.

Right, so and it's been 7 and 7, but so... So we're looking at the two 8% years, but you're going to be presumably coming back after looking at how revenues are and asking for something like the numbers that are on this chart. Is that correct?

Chair Reidy, yes, that is correct. Based on our 10-year projections, that's what, with the information that we had earlier this year, that's what it's looking like is those types of rate adjustments over the next 10 years.

Okay. And then I think it's the bulk sales that is to Landall slash Department of Energy. I was interested in a little more explanation on that one because I think that one did have some, okay, that's the, so yeah, there was one chart that you had in here that listed Yeah, bulk delivery charge, and we look at going back to FY 2021.

Okay, page 20, Mr. Rahal. This chart, Chair Reidy?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, that's the one. So if I understood how you explained this was that we may not have been charging LANL a compensatory rate because now we're increasing it by a lot. And then so they don't have an 8% and 8%. There's a large jump and then a much smaller jump in the rate to LANL. Is that correct? And I guess is it correct that we were undercharging them basically for the cost of delivering water

Chair righty. Yes, that is correct. So prior we've been well, we are currently now just charging the bulk serve the bulk rate that we charge from water production to water distribution. And in that cost, it wasn't including some of the administration reserves and stuff like that. So we, we built this to kind of build that 26% of their costs from our system into the rate.

Okay, so In terms of our financial position, so in terms of water, so the water fund includes all the different customers, the potable, non-potable, landhold, businesses, residents, county, and schools. So do we know how much of a shortfall we have in revenues is due to undercharging landhold?

Chair righty, no, I do not have a cost analysis of the difference of what they haven't paid is what you're asking. No, we did not do that.

And so obviously we have an agreement with them. So there's no way of, because then it's like, we're going to charge you this amount and it has to be by this like ordinance. So part of this ordinance is to correct what we're charging land, right? Because it's all the different rates categories. So if we don't approve this, we don't charge land on the right rate. Is that correct?

Chair Reidy, that is correct. So if this is not approved or passed tonight, we would stay at the rate that we are charging them now.

Okay. I think I might have had another question, but let me double check. Okay. There was a lot of discussion about the ski hill, but I was just, I mean, and we don't have the time to go through this now, but it would just seem like a very small amount of money to raise a thousand gallons of water up 1800 feet. But I'm assuming everybody did the calculation correctly. So it seems like that's very inexpensive. That's just the cost of the power, right?

chair righty you're correct and mr shelton did that calculation himself so so we can have if you want to send that to us offline that's great but i don't think we have time i'll tell you that we we did the calculation three different ways and came up same results three different ways so okay we feel comfortable that that's the cost of power to raise that water yes okay okay um

I know it would take me a lot of energy to raise 1,000 gallons up.

I needed an engineer to help me with that one.

Okay, let's see. I don't think some other issues were brought up, so I think we're ready to see if there's any public comment. Is anyone present that wants to make public comment? Please come up and we'll get the timer ready for you and just have to state your name and.

Um, chair and council counselors. My name is Heidi Bjorklund. And, um, I was here at the meeting where we talked about gas rates and was also kind of confused why when you use less, you're going to get charged more. And, um, A couple of thoughts that came up to me is maybe we should be raising the service charge instead of the rate, because if the service charge is a fixed rate, that's predictable. They can figure out how much it's going to be, and it should be paid the same regardless of the rate of how much people are using. And then the rate would be the cost of water. So that would pay for what you're actually using. And the capital improvements, have we considered using property tax to pay some of that? Because they're long-term expenses. They benefit people that have investments in the community, in their property, in their land that... that maybe that should be considered for this long-term rather than people that are here for a few years paying for a loan that's going to be long-term. And I also wondered about the ski hill. Does the ski hill pay property tax? Because they're definitely benefiting from all this capital improvement. And I did feel... that if we need to conserve water, everybody needs to conserve water. So commercial businesses should be conserving at the same rate as residents. So what Councilor Rieger said about why do we have double rates? If the need is that water is under a reservoir that's under the Jemez Mountains and it's not getting replenished, because of the low water that's falling from above, then we all need to conserve. And so maybe the incentive would be to have everybody pay the rate that it costs to encourage conservation. And another thought I had, it's being billed as the Hamas fire prevention. And I wondered how it's going to be used for fire prevention. Because if they're planning to take helicopters up there and fill their buckets and take it elsewhere, it's at 10,000 feet. And a standard helicopter cannot carry a bucket of water at that elevation. Maybe those really big helicopters that have the two propellers might be able to. Those aren't used as frequently as the ones. So would it even be feasible to use that water for fire prevention with, say, a helicopter? And if not the helicopter, how are you planning to get that water to the fire? I guess that was my questions. You know, have you considered those? Okay.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else present in chambers that would like to make public comment? Okay. Not seeing anyone else present. Mr. Rael, can you look online?

We did have a hand, but it went down. If you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand. Mauro O'Neill, you're now unmuted.

Good evening, counsel. Chair Roddy, I wanted to compliment Joanne Gentry on her presentation, augmented by everybody else that chipped in, but I would like to say that these presentations really help, but it would also help to have that information out in the public before the council meets. I think that would really, really make a difference. I listen to Ms. Gentry and I'm trying to retain everything she's saying, you know, and it just goes past me. And if you're not somebody that's familiar with public utilities, et cetera, it's not easy to retain it. And so I think that a lot of people may be like me where they would, if it came out ahead of time and it was published, that people would read it and it would answer a lot of the questions that that we think we know the answer to, but we don't. It was just an idea. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's a user by the name of Vanessa. You are now unmuted.

Hi. I was wondering, like, the previous person that talked was if there is a way to get the information beforehand just so that we can understand it a little better before it's brought up. And then my second question is just to confirm, it's a charge that's going, an increase is for all of us residential. And because of the way the contract is with the commercials, The city is unable to increase a charge to those people, those companies like Lionel.

Okay. Vanessa, can you, can you, for the clerk's benefit, can you state your last name?

Gonzalez.

Okay. Thank you.

Next attendee we have is Paula Schmidt.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel. Yeah, Paul and I were listening. I'm her husband, Mark Schmidt. And I would just like to reiterate what previous speakers, commenters have said about, you know, we pay the service charge that's $50 or $60 a month. for to pay for the service of bringing water to our homes and that that's a fixed rate, whether we use water or not, and that that rate should really be used for infrastructure improvements. And we also pay property taxes. that pays for the services of the fire and fire department, police, community, all the nice community services we have. And that I would think that bringing water to our house should be covered under those two expenses. And then the water we use should be, You know, we pay for that, but we shouldn't pay an increase to cover the, you know, why don't we have a one year increase in our service fee to catch us up instead of increasing water again when, you know, I've been a resident for over 40 years and water used to be very cheap and much cheaper than surrounding neighbors. And I know that might be unfair, but now it's competing with others and maybe going ahead of some. So I think it would be fair to cover those expenses under the service charges that we pay every month and the property taxes we pay every year. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Uh, do we have anyone else online?

Not seeing anyone else chair.

Okay. Um, so we did have a couple of new issues that came up. So one had to do with, uh, property taxes. So I probably shouldn't ask an answer question, but, uh, I think, would Mr. Shelton or Mr. Gentry, would you like to just explain a little bit about your available sources of revenue? And so I think, does the charter allow property taxes to be used to cover utilities?

Chair Reidy, no. The county charter does not allow for property taxes to cover any cost in utilities. The utilities funds are all... It's an enterprise fund. So it's a business. So our revenue covers all of our expenses and anything that goes on through the year. We do not get any funds from the county from grocery seats tax. So yeah, it's not allowed for property taxes.

Okay. And then... And Ms. Arendt. Ms. Arendt, did you want to add to that?

Sure. I just want to clarify. When Ms. Gentry says county, she just means general fund county versus enterprise fund county. We are all the county.

We're one county here.

Thank you.

So I guess the other thing that came up was I did ask about alternatives. So you looked at the cost of water, right? and not the connection fee because we had gotten this discussion. So for gas, there were three components, but there's just two for water. So there's the service fee and then the per gallon fee. So you're just looking at adjusting the per gallon fee and you don't know what the change would have to be to rectify the fund balance if we went with the service charge.

uh change okay charity so we did we did look at both the service charge and the per thousand gallons um the service charges is covering the cost of the service charge which is now is about 16.69 per month um per customer and um we did look at uh the eight percent rate adjustment for 27 and 28 um most which is page 12 mr rail um The current charge per month is $16.69. For FY27, it's $18.03, and 28 is $19.47, which is an 8% increase. The service charge with that we built into cover is our admin allocation as well as our IDCs, and the IDCs are the costs that we pay to the general county for services such as finance and HR. And then the... The per thousand or consumption charge is covering capital costs, salaries for gas, water, sewer, staff. It covers any debt service that we owe. So the two components that we've got, and you're right, we just have the service cost, the monthly charge, which is a flat rate, and then the consumption charges based on the per thousand gallons that you use of the water.

Okay. And then just to clarify, so the rates that are being proposed are basically different for every kind of customer. So the 8%, I think, applies to most customers. Right. So this is an example of that. So it's that category, residential, multifamily, commercial, county and schools. And then you had a separate calculations for land. Is that correct?

You're correct. So the proposed service charges here and the rate, I mean, and the consumption. charge is for residential multifamily commercial County and schools. And that is an 8% adjustment. And then we did have changes to our non potable, our Lano bulk services and the potty, the mountain service area. So those were additions or changes to what is currently being charged.

Yeah. And the intention is each of those is compensatory just like I already asked. So that means that they pay for themselves, right?

Yes, that is correct. Yeah.

Okay. Um, So I don't think there were any other questions that came up. Okay, so I think now we're ready to see if there's a counselor interested in making a motion. Yeah, Council Member.

Thank you, Chair. I move that Council adopt 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 and ask staff to assure it's published in summary form.

second okay so we have motion by councillor heaven second by councillor herman uh do we have any discussion that's again um so my understanding is this is a two-year um increase and you know we had a similar proposal for the gas that was also two years Do we want to possibly make this one year?

I think that if that's going to be the majority, then you'll have to vote no on this, because this is what's been published, and we can't change it. Correct, Mr. Liebhardt?

Chair, also, the The rate proposal has to come from the Board of Public Utility. Right. The rate can't be set unless and until the Board of Public Utilities makes a recommendation for the rate. I think this ordinance represents the recommendation. That's correct. It doesn't have to go back to BPU for further consideration.

Yeah, with no other information other than it failed.

Correct.

Yeah. Okay. So... not seeing any other. So yeah, I think this one, I did appreciate the comment that the rates have gone up, but the county, the comparisons here are that the county's rates are still lower than most, I guess the exception being Espanola where they might be adding 5% to their rate. And then the other thing that concerned me about voting no on this is that I guess we'd leave in limbo for whatever period of time the change to LANLs, what they're paying. So there's concerns I have about voting no on this. And this just reflects the process that's in the charter is that the board working with the department has to create a rate ordinance then we have to vote yes or no on it. So in this case, I'm going to vote yes for this one because of, for those reasons. So there's no other hands raised. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Herman.

Yes. Councillor Hatheman.

Yes. Councillor Cole. Yes. Yes. Councillor Regor?

No.

Councillor Neill-Clinton? Yes. Councillor Wrighty?

Yes.

Councillor Hand? Yes. Motion passes 6-1 with Councillor Regor opposing.

So the motion passes 6-1 with Councillor Regor in opposition. Okay, so thank you everybody for being here and we'll go on to the next item. I think we have time to do that. So next item is 9B, CO 0758-26B. It's Incorporated County of Los Alamos Code Ordinance number 02383, an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinance of the Corporate County of Los Alamos, repealing Chapter 8, Boards and Commission and Article 14 in its entirety and placing of provisions that create an inclusivity board. So I think we have Ms. Benson to discuss this one.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Councillors. We're back for the public hearing for this ordinance that would create a seven-member inclusivity board. It would add the inclusivity board to Chapter 8, along with all the, it would be, you know, in with all the other boards and commissions. If this ordinance were to be adopted, we would then begin the recruitment process for these board members probably in the month of July. And then the effective date of the ordinance would be right at the beginning of August. So then we would receive applications. We would then need to get a council liaison so we could perform interviews. And then I'm projecting that we would bring back recommendations for appointments sometime in the August timeframe and maybe a first meeting of the board September, October timeframe. So with that, I would stand for any questions.

Okay, so this was at the request of Council. So are there any technical or clarifying questions from Council about this board and the ordinance? Not seeing any. Are there any public comments on the ordinance? Not seeing anyone here. Mr. Real, can you check online for us?

If you're online and you'd like to comment on this item, please raise your hand. Not seeing anything, Chair.

Okay, so is there a councillor interested in making a motion on this item? Councillor Roman?

Thank you, Chair. I move that Council adopt 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 XIV in its entirety and replacing it with provisions to create an inclusivity board and ask staff to assure that it is published in summary form.

Is there a second?

Second. Second.

I'm not sure who I heard first.

That's okay. Susie can have it.

Okay. So, so we have a motion by Council Herman and second by Councilor Hapman. So is there any discussion? Not seeing any. Can the clerk please call the roll?

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

Yes.

Counselor Rieger?

Yes.

Counselor Haberman? Yes. Counselor Cole? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, I'll let the record show the motion passes unanimously. I think the third public hearing, I think we should be able to get that one accomplished. So 9C, CO 0759-26B, it's Incorporated County Los Alamos Code Ordinance number 02384, amending Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 6-10, Bites and Pounding. So I think we're going to have our Chief of Scam below make a brief presentation on this one.

Good evening, Chair and council. Yes, a brief discussion on this issue tonight prompted by a citizen who had an unfortunate situation with her dog being attacked by another dog and really having some discussions with that individual about outcomes and what we were able to do, what we were not able to do, and then followed up those conversations with The county attorney's office came to a conclusion that in my opinion, adding some verbiage that allows for currently it's just humans when our human is bit, but adding language to allow for domesticated animals and pets allows us some more authority to handle those situations by detaining and quarantining dogs involved in the aggressive incidents. And then giving us time then to assess and evaluate whether a dog presents an ongoing public safety concern and determining additional enforcement or safety measures. And overall, just trying to improve our consistent consistency and defensibility of our enforcement action. So the language in front of you is very, brief and simple, and it simply adds the language of domestic dog or domestic pet, excuse me, yes, domestic pet and dogs. Domestic or pet animals, I'm sorry. With that, I'll stand for questions.

Okay. Uh, the counselors have any, uh, technical or clarifying questions for the chief on this change proposed change to the code, not seeing any chair.

Oh, how many citizens requested this ordinance?

Well, I brought a council council, a chair, righty councilor Rieger. I just brought that up as an example that in this particular incidence, there was a conversation with the citizen that, uh, kind of prompted this issue, although it has been brought up before. But it was a combination of, I think, just recognizing that the outcome in that particular situation wasn't ideal. And could we evaluate the current ordinance and determine if there were any options to allow us a little bit more

So this is somebody's dog bit another dog. Yes. Any other animals involved in any of these kind of ordinances?

I mean, what's the... Yeah, as it currently stands, it was restricted to humans being the victim. And we want to add domestic pets... again, to give us a little bit more leeway, to give us some time to evaluate that situation. Is this a dangerous dog? And if it is, there's a whole other process that's not our ordinance, but that we would follow. Right now, we don't really have a mechanism to, I think, I would say effectively investigate a dog-on-dog type situation, which you know, are very traumatic situations for the families involved and I think they deserve something better than we've been able to provide thus far from an investigative perspective.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor Rieger. I was saying, Councilor Cole, did you have a question?

Yes. Chief, so I mean, the previous wording basically was a dog biting a person. Obviously, the person doesn't bite back. But in the case of a dog biting another dog, what if you end up with a dog fight? Are you going to impound both dogs? I mean, how would you handle something like that?

Chair, righty, Counselor Call, I think that's a great question. And I would answer that in a way that I think is similar with many of the other previous discussions we've had on animal control and enforcement. Um, it, it depends. And, and, you know, you have to rely, I think, on the professionalism and the experience of our animal control officers who go out and evaluate these situations. And, um, you know, many times it's, you're able to, uh, identify the aggressive party. And, uh, although that's not always the case. So you just have to take the, you know, the investigation as it comes, you know, where their witnesses, it's very similar to, you know, what the police officers do, um, and then make your best judgment. And again, from a community, uh, public safety perspective, I think just having the tool available, should we need it to, uh, give us a little bit more time to figure out exactly what happened. And is this a dangerous dog that represents an ongoing threat to, uh, to the safety of other animals or humans, and then allowing us to take the appropriate path moving forward.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Council Cole. Any other questions? Not seeing any. Is there any public comment on this item? Not seeing anyone in the chambers. Is there anyone on Zoom?

Lisa Reeder, you are now unmuted. Please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes.

Thank you. Hi. Thank you. Lisa Reeder, 3217 Woodland. Also, stable lot number 67 and 68. My question would be the definition of domestic animals. I would like to see the equines included. If somebody's dog bites my horse or my mule or cow, gets into my chickens or whatever. So I'm hoping that that definition can be expanded to cover more than just the dogs and cats. I'm not totally sure how that's worded. I think it's a good idea and thank you very much for bringing it up.

Thank you, Ms. Rear. Do we have any other public comment?

Chair, we do. There is an attendee named Vanessa. Please state your full name and limit your comments to three minutes.

Vanessa Gonzalez. I support this in adding to domestic animals to not include just dogs or cats, but also a Christian and chickens as such, as it can be very heartbreaking when a loved animal is attacked. So I do agree. Something should be added so more investigations can be done for this. That is all.

Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. Do we have any other public comment?

Chair, not seeing anyone else.

Okay. So, Chief, is there language about domestic violence restrictive in what we heard, the comments?

Chair Ratty, I was looking in the material that I brought for the definition of how domestic or pet animals is defined, and I didn't bring that with me. Mr. Leapart, can you help us?

Yes, Chair. Domestic or pet animal is a defined term in the statute, in the overall ordinance, if you look back up to the definitions. And the definition, it says, means any animal commonly kept as a pet in family households in the United States. And any animals commonly kept for companion or commercial purposes, chickens, or protection or for sale to others for such purposes, including but not limited to dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents, birds, reptiles, and any other species of animal that are sold, retained as a household pet, but shall not include skunks, And any other species of wild or exotic animal that may be further restricted by law. It's a little ambiguous on horses.

Okay. It doesn't say horses.

It could be a companion.

It could be horses.

I think it would be horses.

It could be horses, but they're not mentioned. Okay. So that answers, I think, the questions we heard from the public. It's a fair game, though. Okay. Okay. Skunks. Okay. So, okay, so I think we have the answers to those. So, hearing all that, is there a councilor interested in making a motion about the ordinance? So, Councilor Han, do you have that ready?

Thank you, Chair. I move that council adopt Incorporated County of Los Angeles ordinance number 02-384, amending chapter six, article I, except Article I or Article I. I think it's Article I. Section 6-10, Bytes and Pounding. I also further move that upon passage, the ordinance be published in summary form. Second.

Okay. So we have a motion by Councillor Hamm, second by Councillor Herman. Is there any discussion? I'll just say that it was... Councilor Rieger?

I was just going to say, initially I thought this ordinance sounded kind of silly, but now with the presentation and the public comment, I think it's probably something that we need to protect all kinds of different animals around town. So I'll be voting in favor of it.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Rieger. So we met with the person a few months ago. Appreciate you following up on the code. in finding this addition to make to make it clear that we could investigate this kind of thing, because it is very traumatic for the families and people that love their all kinds of animals. So with that, I think, can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Redding?

Yes.

Councillor Regan?

Yes.

Counselor Hand? Yes. Counselor Cole?

Yes.

Counselor Haberman?

Yes.

Counselor Neal Clinton? Yes. Counselor Herman? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, I'll let the record show the motion passes unanimously. And I think given it's eight o'clock, we'll take a short break for 10 minutes and then we'll get into, I think, the presentation discussion that some people stayed for. So appreciate your patience for staying through that. Thank you. Are we still connected with him? Okay. Okay. So we're back from the break. We're on to item 10. Business 10. A is 21875 dash 26. It's presentation on cameras and data collection throughout Los Alamos County. So we have chiefs came alone again.

Chair, I just want, before we start, I just want to make sure our technology is up and running.

We're not seeing the people on Zoom. On the screen. Or on screen. That's what I was wondering.

I'm here.

Can you hear me? Yeah, we can. Now we can see the... I'm here as well. Okay, great. Thank you for confirming. Ready?

Yeah, we're ready to go. Thanks. Chair, righty. Counselors... Thank you for allowing me to present tonight. I'd like to start by recognizing and thanking some of my staff that helped not only put this presentation together, but really is instrumental in helping us do what we do every day. That's Desiree Miranda and Commander Ross and Deputy Chief Rodriguez. We've put together this presentation, crafted it in a way to hopefully answer the predictable questions in a way that promotes trust and accountability regarding cameras, LPRs, and other technologies. We get it. I think there are questions, and these questions are reasonable and expected. Where does this data live? Who can see it? Can it be shared without our permission? How long is it retained? Can a federal entity access it? Who's accountable when something goes wrong? Who owns the data and is it sold? How is it audited? Since we've had it, has there been any misuse? So hopefully our presentation tonight will answer those questions as we to discuss our current capabilities. Can you? Next slide, please. So ALPRs or LPRs were introduced in 2023 as part of our commitment to public safety and responsible technology use. The LPRs are used exclusively for law enforcement. And the data is secured and accessible only by staff. And just really for those that may not know, an LPR is a license plate reader. It's a camera that takes pictures of license plates and vehicles in public areas. Next slide, please. I do want to mention on the former slide, you don't have to go back, but The New Mexico State Legislature did pass a statute relevant to LPRs, which enhances the accountability and reporting of the use of these systems on an annual basis. Go ahead. Oh, so we currently utilize or have been utilizing Motorola WatchGuard However, as part of our Axon platform, we are transitioning. We are in the beginning stages of that transition. So some of the functionality we may not have actually done yet, depending on what the area of the technology is, but that transition is ongoing. Next slide, please. And the core commitment. You know, we want to enhance public safety. That's our job. But we want to protect civil liberty. There are clear guardrails, both in the law now and with policy, for data collection, usage, and storage. And as I mentioned, the state mandates compliance reporting, and we have our local system audits. Just very briefly, the Supreme Court is not issued anything on LPRs directly. But with respect to the Fourth Amendment, what's typically cited in lower courts have spoken on the issue. But in terms of the Supreme Court, it's Katz v. United States. And basically, it's what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Next slide, please. And so there's a balance. All those public safety benefits on the left, we have done those through the use of this technology, every one of them. On the right, again, the new state law, which addresses reporting and accountability. And when I say reporting, it's reporting things like our audit, our internal audit process, and whether or not there were any misuses of the system. And the law discusses potential penalties for the agencies up to and including not being able to utilize the technology. There are data retention limits. Again, mandated state reporting and system audits. Data sharing limitations. The data is not shared with any agency that we don't want it to. We own the data. The data is never sold, and we only share data with agencies that we're allowed to as prescribed by law. There is an audit. There's a built-in access log. Anytime... A query is made on the system data. It requires who the officer is, what the associated case number or reasoning is, the date, time, all of these things. And it can be queried by officer, by a particular plate. It can be queried by anything that you put into the system. Our internal policy requires unannounced audits. And then the system design, just evaluating really Axon as a whole. It's very clear that they are a privacy-minded company. They have designed these systems with privacy in mind and accountability and transparency. Next slide, please. Before I get into that, I do want to say that with respect to Axon, they have what they call a responsible innovation framework. And through that, they recognize that although their cameras have revolutionized public safety, there's still legal and ethical rigor which must remain paramount. Data and evidence collected by law enforcement through these devices is intended to help solve crime, reduce threats, improve training, promote transparency and accountability. We own and control all data collected on these devices. We protect that data by investing in and remaining committed to world-class information security and privacy. And we safeguard that privacy, the human rights and dignity of individuals with tools such as access control and redaction. Just by way of education, the county has a number of systems, some managed by the police, others not. There are several security cameras throughout the county. Retention of that data is 180 days. We have traffic operation cameras. which are retained for 28 days. And then the MyDrive cameras, excuse me, which live stream various roadways, that's also retained for 28 days. And then just included this slide to show a sense of scope with respect to this issue in terms of camera usage across the United States. Next slide, please. We set the retention data that is not needed for evidentiary purposes or for other investigative purposes, purged automatically. It's transferred into our what's called axon evidence, where the retention periods are configured and can vary depending on the type. Excuse me. Whether it's citations or for lawsuits, public records, etc. Non-evidentiary LPR data is automatically deleted per our policy. Thank you. State requires we maintain body-worn camera footage for 120 days. And we intend to go be consistent with that. Although for non-evidentiary data storage, it'll be less than that, probably 30 or 60. Next slide, please. Again, immutable audit logs showing who accessed the data, when, and why. That data is, or excuse me, our policy requires regular and unannounced audits of the data.

Next slide, please.

Third-party sharing. Again, we control access to our data. The data is invite-only. It's visible and revocable. Axon does not operate a national pool or enable automatic sharing. An agency will always know exactly who has access to the data. Access is limited to rare support cases when explicitly authorized by the agency, and shared access does not create any copies of LPR records. Again, this data helps us to accelerate investigations, find missing persons, better protect the communities we serve by locating, identifying vehicles faster and more accurately. That's so important. I included it twice on my slide there. It's estimated that over 75% of all crime involves a vehicle. So it's not surveillance for surveillance sake. when designed responsibly, which the system is, provide safety with accountability. We retain the ownership. We set the rules. We preserve the community trust with transparency tools. It's designed in alignment with Axon's Responsible Innovation Framework. They give agencies a model that is effective in the field, defensible in the community. And with that, I'll stand for questions.

Thank you, Chief. We have two related items. This is just the discussion first on the cameras in general. If there are questions or comments about what we've heard tonight, we won't be taking action on this part. We will be looking at taking action on the next part. Do the councillors have any... We'll start with some councillor questions first. I'll see if there's any Are there any councilor questions? Councilor Atman?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chief, for providing this information. I think people have been interested in this topic for a while, so it's very helpful. Regarding access to camera data, somewhere in here it said access is given to, quote, unquote, authorized personnel. And I was hoping you could give us some examples of who authorized personnel are.

Chair Reidy, Counselor Haveman, that would be any officer within the department and anybody that we agreed to share the data with, meaning other law enforcement, for example, Pawakee.

Yeah, if they had a reason to need the information, I guess, is what you're saying?

Yes.

Okay. So any officer in the department. So what about a fear that what if there's just a bad character unbeknownst to us in the department who maybe just goes out of bounds for whatever reason? Mm-hmm. even if it's an anomaly, how do we protect against information being used in a nefarious way, I guess?

So, great question. And, you know, certainly something we consider and take very seriously. You know, access to this data is just one element of the responsibility and the access to privileged and confidential information. And one piece of the trust that that is demanded by our citizens. We can't stand over every officer's shoulder every time they make a decision every day, but a lot goes into that answer from our hiring practices to the culture we've established, to our policies, to our guiding principles and our mission and vision statement. The accountability that we've shown to date on matters that have unfortunately occurred within the department. And then you inspect what you expect. So again, there's audit logs, and there's two ways to do that. One is you just randomly check cases and determine if the information that was entered makes sense. Is this vehicle related to what they said they were looking at it for? And the other way is to specifically identify data or queries so if somebody complained and said i think my data is being utilized in an improper way and this is my license plate we can actually search that specifically and see how many times if at all it was queried i will say that since 23 when we initiated this with watchguard we haven't had any not only have we not had any official misuse investigations. We haven't had any complaints of that. So, um, it's a professional team. We're not perfect. Uh, I certainly don't anticipate any misuse. Um, if, if, if they do, then at some point we're going to catch them. And I just don't think it's worth it to people, but we're all human. So,

I appreciate that. Thank you. And then secondly, I think some people might have a fear about if there were intervention or requests from the federal level, say from DHS or ICE, even though I think we have some new state statute that might prevent this, but what do we do if we receive pressure from an organization from under DHS? demanding information that's stored through these cameras, you know, how do we prevent that so that we don't have an unintended consequence of someone being targeted, you know, in my worst case scenario for deportation?

Chair, righty, Councilor Hammond. So you're right, the state law prohibits that type of data sharing. So for them to demand the only way would be through some sort of search warrant that we would have to comply with, but I don't never even heard of that. So I don't even know if that is that, if that's a reality, but, um, no, we decide who, who, um, who gets access to the data and the state law does prohibit, uh, federal access and the system itself does not, um, have, um, automated federal access like some people might think.

Thank you. Then my third question is, did we, so we were with Motorola, we're switching to Axon, that's in process, but I've kind of learned and heard that one of the more prominent companies that provides the service is Flock. And did we look at,

flock did they did they bid on this did we did we choose axon or did we put out at a bid and they responded and then we chose them do you recall how that procurement worked counselor haverman so we did look at flock years ago like when this first started so we were probably looking at this in 21 22 if it came to fruition in 23 uh we passed on them obviously we went through uh WatchGuard, the former deputy chief, Oliver Morris, was the one that spearheaded that. We began to look at Axon not only because of the LPR piece, but everything else that they offer. They are as complete of a technological solution that we could find and really needed help in such areas as redaction and and then found a lot of the officer safety issues, uh, uh, technological, um, advantages of, of, um, translation, for example, and, um, some of the AI functioning with, uh, report writing and, uh, just everything that the Axon suite handles along with, again, their commitment. It's very clear, um, to designing these systems, anticipating questions like this and community concerns and how they design these systems with privacy in mind and really allowing us to enhance our capacity to provide exceptional public safety and, of course, balancing that with citizens' rights, which is also part of our mission statement. It really wasn't, oh, it's Axon, let's go after their LPR. LPR was just a piece of really Axon, which took care of all the rest. And LPR is just a piece of it.

Thank you. That makes sense. And then finally, do you know offhand what system the city of Santa Fe uses? Yes.

We don't know.

Okay. But Albuquerque uses Exxon or is that with the other contract with Albuquerque? I believe we're modeling one of our things after Albuquerque, right?

They're also transitioning to Exxon.

Okay. Okay. So I thought about that. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilor Hubman. I think we have Councilor Cole.

Thank you, Chair Reine. I'm just curious, Chief, is the data that you collect subject to IPRA?

Councilor chair righty Council call. No and that was part of the. I'm sorry. Once redacted. OK once redacted there's some language in the new state law which talks about. What data is subject to it bro. Yeah. Are you asking on camera data or on LPR data specifically?

Well, I mean, I was mostly asking about the LPR. You know, I think people have raised concerns about you know, domestic issues and someone wanting to know if their estranged spouse or partner was in an area, you know, or whatever they might want the information for. You know, anybody can make a request for any reason under IPRA if the data is accessible under IPRA.

It's my understanding, my interpretation of the law prohibits specifically IPRA on LPR data. Did you have something to add?

Yes.

Clarification on this?

Yes. As to the license plate reader data, the bill that was adopted makes it clear the data is not subject to IPRA. as it states automatic license plate reader information is confidential and not considered a public record for the purposes of the Inspection of Public Records Act. It is absolutely clear that LPR data is exempt from disclosure under IPRA.

Thank you for that clarification. Another question just about the use of LPRs. We were partly doing this to support the laboratory at some point. Are they going to have access to the data?

Chair Reidy, Councilor Call, we had discussed through the speed camera project, collaborating with the laboratory on data associated with the speed camera project, not the LPR project.

Oh, okay. I was thinking they were one and the same, but that's not the case.

Correct. Okay. They're similar, but they both capture a plate of The LPR is a database that is, you can query for investigative purposes or to find somebody that, you know, has dementia and took the family car and, you know, is located in Colorado, which is a success story of ours. But the speed camera takes the picture as well, but then that is funneled back to the vendor, and we'll get into this in my next presentation, but And then that initiates a civil process for a fine for exceeding a speed limit. That's the difference.

Okay. And in the case of the LPR, we only take pictures of the license plate, not necessarily who's in the car, who's driving.

I believe it's the plate with the broader view of the vehicle. But because New Mexico... Well, that would be for New Mexico, and I'm confusing the two now myself. Do you know the answer of whether that could...

Councilor Colt, so to answer your question, so the camera system, the ALPR that we have, it does take a general shot of the vehicle and then also of the license plate. It kind of zooms in on the license plate so then the officer can verify the accuracy of the license plate, the one that the system popped up and gave us the numbers for.

So the primary purpose is to get the license plate, not necessarily to look at who's in the vehicle.

Yeah, it's not really – most of the time it's going to capture it probably from a rear or a side angle. It's not going to be a dead-on, and it's not looking for any facial recognition. It's just looking for vehicle or the plate.

Okay. Thank you both. I appreciate it.

And if I could just add to that, when – When the system kicks back a potential match, I guess, you still have to verify that as Commander Ross was talking about. So it's not 100% and it's not, you know, you have to verify that what it's telling you is accurate and then utilize that knowledge moving forward. It's not a guarantee. So there's still a human element is what I'm trying to say. On both, on both speed camera and LPR.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilor Cole.

Councilor Neal-Clinton?

Thank you, Chair. Quick question regarding the backup and the redundancy. Where is the data backed up to?

Chair Reidy, Councilor Neal-Clinton, the cloud.

And how is that cloud... How is that protected? I mean, we get data breaches all the time. So how is that protected?

Understood. And I'm not like a guru in tech, but reading through, you know, Exxon's design and platform, they're very, again, very privacy conscious, very tech conscious. I'm sure they're using the most up-to-date and encrypted methods possible. Again, that would be my answer. I don't know the technical part of it.

Are you aware of any data breaches to date?

I am not.

Chair Reddy, Counselor Neal-Clinton, I'm looking in the audience if there's any from IM that's got a little knowledge, but

I only asked the question because I married the guy that, you know, designed supercomputers. So that just popped in my head.

Oh, Mr. Yeah. John Roy is online. I would just say my, my layman's understanding is we've, we've looked at our systems and requirements for the cloud that meets the standards by which we provide services through our fire department to the national laboratory. And there's a whole list of criteria about that cloud storage. Not all cloud storage is equally protected. So I just know that we've worked hard to meet the standards that the laboratory requires of us for our data collection through our fire services. And so we do have those sort of expertise in our IM department that works to confirm that those are adequately met for cybersecurity purposes. And I don't know if Mr. Roig wants to add anything or not.

Hi, good evening. Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Yes, basically Axon manages their own data in their own cloud. Now that said, we don't have eyes inside their cloud. Chances are really, really good they're using a hyperscaler like an AWS or a Google Cloud and picking the tiered security that they need. So the data does not reside within Los Alamos County and it is completely managed by Axon in this case. But yes, when the contract went through, we reviewed it and made sure that that at least what they state, they are meeting all security requirements that, well, they need to in these cases.

So you have off-site but not on-site. You don't have local storage. It's all in the cloud, yes?

That's correct. There would be no local storage of Axon data. The only thing I can think of, if you want me to speculate, I suppose, would be if we get an IPRA on the Axon data and then PD would pull that down and and redacted as they have to according to their rules and send it off to the requester. There would be some temporary onsite storage within the county, very temporary, while that process was ongoing.

Okay, thank you for that. Second question regarding the access to the data. How do you verify that whoever's accessing the data is actually that person? Is it two-factor authentication? Is it a PIP card? What is it? Because let's say I decided I wanted to be nefarious and jump on and use someone else's credentials. How do you thwart that?

I can speak to how we do it on the county side in terms of accessing the network. And yes, we have MFA, multi-factor authentication, to log into the network. Once, though, you're in the network and you're using the Axon system, I would have to defer to Chief and Police as to how the Axon system is set up for security. Thank you. Can we do it in... Well, I can probably go on this for a while and bore everybody, but...

I married that person too. So getting back to Exxon though, how do they verify that again, whoever it is that's accessing the information, not Exxon, well, yeah, it's their system. So how do they verify that I'm actually the person requesting the information? Because again, if my intent is to thwart, then it's certainly not going to be saying, yeah, it's really me. And that's directed to chief for the Exxon.

Councilman Neal Clinton, I can answer that. And this is just kind of only have an axon for about a month. But I'll give you an example to dual authentic certification. So when we give every officer a body worn camera, It's paired to their phones that are on their apps, their county phones. And so when they log in, it will ask them and it will give them a dual authentication that goes to that camera that was assigned to them, and then they have to plug in that number. So when they log into the evidence.com account, they have to use their name, password, and then it wants another layer of authentication. It's usually through that body-worn camera, which then pops up with the code, and then they have to log it in. So it would be very difficult for an officer to get another officer's body-worn camera, have it look at the code... And then try to be able to go through it. So they put a lot of safeguards in just to make sure that doesn't happen.

So that was going to be my next question. So they use the authentication of the camera and that camera is tied to an officer and that officer only has access to that camera. No one else does.

Yes, that camera is assigned to that officer and it's synced through their phone. It's synced through their cameras or their computers in their cars. And it's synced even to the camera in their vehicle as well. And so that body-worn camera is assigned to that one officer. So if it doesn't pick it, if it doesn't, if I grab somebody else's camera, it won't work.

Okay. So that's a type of multi-factor authentication. Okay, Coolio. All right. Thank you so much. All right. That's all I got.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Nielsen. Do you have any other questions? Councillor Rieger?

Well, you know, I mean, these kind of companies, even if they're private now, they could sell the data some future time, right? They could have a management change in policy, something like that, or they could be hacked and just lose it. I mean, how do you... We don't really know that stuff is protected. Is it illegal for them to sell it?

Chair Reidy, Councillor Rieger... it's contractually barred now the the the uh the hacking is a whole nother you know issue that all companies deal with but in terms of our contract with axon we own the data and we we don't sell the data and they can't sell the data contractually and if they change their policies and such they would have to break the contract

suppose so they'd be in breach of contract and open them suppose they would expose themselves by doing that i wouldn't foresee that happening yeah are you just going to say something yeah uh chair righty uh council rieger the contract prohibits them from we own it and it forbids them from selling it uh that contract will not change based on their policy changes If they make some policy change or some other corporation buys them out, they will have to honor the terms of that contract. So they can't change a policy or be sold and affect our rights under our contract. So that contract language is binding on them. And, uh, If they were to breach that, we would take all necessary legal measures against them to stop them from doing that, including seeking an injunction against them if they were going to try to sell the data. There would be very severe and swift legal remedies should they try to do something like that.

That's good to know. So then the other concern would just be inadvertent release like hacking and people penetrating their system and getting the data. Sure. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Rieger. Do we have any other? So I think we asked some of the issues. But I think one thing, so the table you had or the comparison to bullet lists, public safety and civil liberties. So you mentioned one case about finding a person. So So the license plate readers have been in use for about three years, right? Here. Yeah, here. More broadly, other places. So we've had them for about three years. So within the three-year period, would you be able to come up with, I mean, not right now, but some information on, like, how often it's led to finding people? Because you listed several kinds of categories here. And then can you better define what a traffic safety initiative would be where we'd use the license plate readers?

Chair Reidy, to your first issue, in preparation for this, I did have the officer send me some examples of successes. I didn't list them, but... and it was just one team that I did that with, but there were several, um, we don't really, haven't really been tracking that, you know, comprehensively. I can see what else I can put together, but, um, you know, I guess what is the value of, of locating one dementia patient in Colorado? I mean, yeah, that was awesome that that we were able to do that. So, um, to your second question, um,

Uh, I'm sorry. What was the second? Oh, it was, uh, so you did have a bullet that was traffic safety initiatives and that was, I wasn't sure what that referred to.

Um, my initial, uh, presentation, I combined both speed camera and, uh, LPR and then, and then I was told to take it apart and I missed that. Okay.

That was more coming soon. Okay. Um, so, um, The data retention limits, so the body cams are, I think you said 120 days? Yes, sir, by law. That's by law. And then we're looking at a different number of days for the license plate reader data. But those data are not available except internally. that correct that's what you told us basically yes sir yeah so but or if there was a request from another agency that we cooperate with because they're looking for a particular that this flight go through and what days okay so um so is there a reason for having a particular number of days of retainage i mean so is that part of the issue of like so having the data more than longer than you need, even if it's, is that the problem is like, we don't want to retain data any longer than we need to retain it. Yes, sir. So 30 days would be okay. If we kept it for 72 hours, that would not be long enough because that would not be long enough to assist in the investigations you're talking about in this one column. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. So just by way of example, experience has shown us that, um, we had a situation where some people were doing things they shouldn't be doing with ATMs in the community. And it wasn't just our community. We learned that it was in multiple communities and then we were able to determine where they were out of and, and work with that agency. And anyway, I bring that up as an example, because when you have, like multi-jurisdictional offenders over time, then the more data you have obviously is going to be beneficial to you, but there's a balance there, right? So in recognizing that we're trying to, um, Be effective in terms of those types of situations that occur over time and yet not unnecessarily keep volumes of data that have really no relevance. And again, the data we're speaking about in this situation, although it's aggregated and can be queried, is no different than me standing out here with a pen and paper and writing your car plate down as you drive by. It's just it's in an automated system that can be queried over time. But the data itself, like if it was hacked, all they're getting is a vehicle plate and a description, time and date, GPS, that type of thing. It's not like they're getting somebody's PII. That's what I'm trying to say. There's no social security number with it. There's no date of birth, anything like that.

Well, I think the general concern was the, you know, and that, so are we have, we're just looking at New Mexico on the map. There's a lot of places that don't have cameras, right? They're just in, I think Farmington had a fair number, you know, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, some along some of the major highways, right? So it just seems like there's a, there's a fair concentration in some places, and some places don't have them. And we didn't have them until 2023. And so that seems like that's a communication gap, is that we didn't go out of our way to let people know, well, these cameras are out there. Because the question came up from a letter to the editor about the cameras and why they're being used. So I think the other question I've seen posed was about the cost. So with the fact that now it's bundled all together, is there any way to understand what the incremental cost is? Because apparently, according to the map anyway, we have eight of these licensed plate reader cameras, if that's correct, in the county.

So those would be referring to our existing... Those existing cameras, and that's not

So that's part of the Axon contract, unless I'm getting confused about this too.

Well, I can't say that for sure, but I believe that that data on that map shows WatchGuard data. Okay. So a different source. We're just in our infancy on Axon.

So those haven't migrated to Axon. So those are with another provider. So I don't want to get back into the questions we just had about all this old provider versus the new one, but is there any easy way to understand what that incremental cost is? Because I think the comment people were making is it's a very safe community, but like you said, there are things where it's a lost person and the license plate can help locate them. So I think people would like to know kind of what is the marginal cost of having this as part of the suite of things that we're doing.

And so anyway. I know that that was itemized. I don't have it in front of me, Helen. Yeah. We can get that for you.

Okay. I think that, yeah, that would be helpful. And I think that would be helpful to get that out to the community since there were questions about that. Okay. We've had someone waiting very patiently to make a comment. So yeah. Let's see. Let's go ahead and entertain public comment.

My name is Chris Lucini. I'm a resident of White Rock. So I'm glad you guys are switching to Axon. It does have a secure system. I researched this firm out. There have been no data breaches. The Motorola cameras, however, have been hacked repeatedly. So I would be... Encouraging to make that transaction as fast as possible, right? There's real security data security issues with the Motorola system One of the issues that I would like to get information on and it may not be available is How many accesses are there? Per month by an officer. I mean, is it a dozen? Is it a dozen a day? And what is the audit ratio, right? And If you have 1,000 accesses a month and you audit 10 at random, that doesn't seem sufficient. So the audit ratio is something I would be interested to hear about. And then lastly, I know they're saying that you're not keeping anything but anecdotal uses of this. I think it is critically important to understand how many positive outcomes are divided by the cost. I looked at the agenda. I don't remember exactly the cost here, but it's $2 million. Is that correct? Something like that? That's for the next item. Okay. All right. So for this contract, I just don't know what it is, what the cost is. If you get 10 saves a year at a cost of whatever, or is it one save every year? five years. The NCIC data, I'm very interested, that is external data that's coming in from federal law enforcement. So presumably that's automated into your LPR system, right? So you've got a hot list and that data is coming from other agencies. So in terms of those queries, those accesses for the data, what percentage are generated locally within this community and what percentage are coming from outside entities? Last point of information, Espinola, Milwaukee, and Santa Fe all use Flock, right? And you've all heard about Flock. So I don't know of any plans in those communities to switch. I believe Santa Fe is switching to Axon as well. At least it's being discussed. So anyway, those are my questions. I'd like to actually hear what the answers are, if not today, sometime.

Thank you, Mr. Cheney.

Good evening. My name is Rachel Reese. I'm a resident of Los Alamos. First thing to clarify, the map that was shown is actually a crowdsourced map. So I was the person who entered the eight cameras around the community. There could and is likely more that are missed. That's one of the first things. I'd like to bring up the idea that This is a privacy overreach in that you may be able to stand out and notate license plates, but this is by virtue of it being an automated data and an aggregate of data. This is a continuous location log that would be akin to something like a credit card transaction history at stores, being able to track somebody's movement throughout a community and interrogating something like private people's security cameras, things that would traditionally require a warrant or something greater, a greater level of effort that maybe not is not covered under this policy. I'd also like to highlight two false positive incidents that happened very close to our community in Española. There was a child that was detained when Her sister was driving a car, uh, falsely, um, and, uh, Additionally, there was a citizen held falsely under gunpoint for a stolen plate lag in the database that was falsely identified. I think that having anybody stopped at gunpoint falsely because of the use of this data should be greatly outweighing, and combining that with the privacy concerns, I think that greatly outweighs the benefits. for the community. So once again, I'd like to emphasize my personal opposition and urge you to take up measures to restrict this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Heike Wilcox, and I have questions regarding all of this as well. First of all, it seems like the cameras were already installed in 2023. How come the public did not know about this? That's one question. The other question is, who is Axon? It's a private company. Whom are they networking with? Are they networking with the government? I'm concerned about surveillance overreach. and privacy overreach. It's violating our 14th Amendment. I do not agree with that. And it was not asked for the consent of the people by the people. This is something that's instated by I'm not sure exactly who instated this. And the public, again, wasn't notified. Now we are learning about this after the fact. The cameras have been installed. And the same as the person before me, the privacy issues are huge. are a huge question and I just think that we don't know the scope of how this is being used, how is this being used by the government or overreach, the technology companies, the technocrats, the global initiatives. There is a lot more that is tied in with that. And to think that this is only restricted to traffic or criminal investigations, I think, is naive. I just... This takes a lot more than what we are discussing here, and there are a lot more points to that, and I'm not fully prepared, honestly, and I'm tired, but I am here to speak for many, many people that are not here today, and we do have concerns. Oh, yeah, and there's another thing. 71 cities in the United States already have, what's it called, axed, basically, the surveillance cameras, In Europe, they're being dismantled by the public, basically taken out by the public. There is a lot of concern from the people in the world, not just in this country, but in Europe, particularly in Europe. And there is a reason for that. I just, I don't think that we understand the scope of implementing such policies and structures and surveillance, how far this can go. And this needs to be investigated and rigorously researched.

Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me. Good evening. My name is Jacob Connect. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be able to talk tonight. First off, I love every single one of you. I love you guys. Thank you for the job that you guys do keeping us safe. I'm going to go quick. Are these cameras, is this system connected to a data collection through cell phones? OK. You said there was a slide that said that it was to help identify missing people, but they say there's also no facial recognition. Does that make sense to y'all? If it only takes a picture of the rear end of the vehicle and they say it's going to help, it just doesn't hold water. My stepdad's truck got stolen over there on Myrtle in the last string of vehicle thefts in Los Alamos. We have these cameras. Milwaukee had these cameras. Santa Fe had these cameras. That didn't help find my stepdad's truck. Think about what you guys are doing for future generations and how this can be used against us in the future. They put up the surveillance system. And then all of a sudden the government says, oh, you said something we don't agree with. What happened during COVID, we need to pay attention to what's going on with our sovereignty, our freedoms and our liberties. And this is, it's really interesting to watch this community. We, you know, we're the home of the atomic bomb, right? Growing up, I was really proud of being from this community. fighting communists. And now it just seems like everybody just works for communists now. No one cares about people's liberties, their freedoms. And where is it going to stop? Is it going to just stop at the flock cameras? Because flock, or these cameras in general, they also have a drone system. I just ask that you guys consider, reconsider this. I understand Trump signed the biggest AI bill in human history. And then Thomas Mason comes out and says, the new Manhattan project for LANL is AI. You guys just had a hour and a half long talk about water And all this data is going to data collection centers that are sucking up our water. Meanwhile, Landau is using, they're gonna be projected to be using 1.4 million gallons of water a day for their data and all the stuff that they're doing over there. But then, like, it just doesn't seem that there's very much common sense going on around here. And I just ask that you guys really listen to the community on this one. And this is nothing personal against any of you. It's just, I love my freedoms. I love my liberties. 98% of the people in this community have way more to lose than I do. And I just ask that you stand up for yourselves. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Smith. I am here tonight to talk, or sorry, public speaking is hard. I just wanted to point out that The data collected is kind of compiled in a mosaic, and that can be really dangerous because it's not just your license plate. You know, it's distinctive features about your car. If you've got stickers on it, you know, your location. Everywhere you go, kind of the presence of it being in a mosaic makes it inherently dangerous. Whether that's accessed by, like, law enforcement or hacked by a different group, it can be used... inappropriately and it can be accessed in one way or another. That I think is a violation of kind of privacy. And there are examples of these systems faulting, like the Espanola example. They can read numbers incorrectly on license plates. There's so many lawsuits and things happening about these technologies right now that it's a little hard to keep up to date on everything. But there's a huge pushback in a lot of different communities and a lot of different places on not using these systems. A lot of people don't trust them, don't trust the people who run them, don't trust the companies who own them. And you really have to ask yourself, is that what this community wants? I know anyone who works at the lab kind of already signs up for that, but people who don't, they haven't consented to that kind of thing. My final point, there are documented cases that law enforcement officers have misused these before to track individuals for personal kind of non-investigative purposes that threat is always going to be there if this system is enacted and used. And that's like nothing against anyone. That is kind of a big concern and a huge kind of oversight even with auditing practices. I don't think you can catch it all. And even one instance can be highly damaging. And this is our community that we're talking about. And so we should protect each other by not enabling this kind of technology to be used. I think it poses a greater threat to public safety than what it aims to prevent and that the community does not want these to be operating. That's it.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sharon Dry, and I just have a question. There are different companies that do these LPRs, and we just changed from Motorola to Axon. Do they all connect? Like if you're going to, you want to find out where this license has been, do they all connect to the other ones? Or is it only the Axon ones that you would be able to connect to to find out? what license plates gone different places.

Well, we'll ask that when we have all the comments. I'm making notes of some questions that may fall off here, so we'll make sure that gets answered. Do we have anyone else that's got a comment present here? Israel, can you check online to see if there's any commenters?

We have an attendee, Gianna Delori. You are now unmuted. Please state your full name and limit your comments to three minutes, please. Thank you.

Hi, this is Andrew Delory on Gianna Delory's phone. My comment is I would consider a license plate number to be PII. I know that the law probably doesn't, but you can pretty easily figure out who that person is if you wanted to. But the other comment I wanted to make about the technology, I'm aware of other cloud services where the customer's data is encrypted, but only the customer has the decryption keys. And so if it was that kind of a system, then even if a system was hacked, or there was a bad actor at the vendor, they wouldn't be able to actually access any of the data without the encryption keys, which they wouldn't have. Only the Los Alamos County Police Department would have the decryption keys, and so nobody else would have access to it. I'm just wondering if Axon has that kind of a system. That's it.

Yeah, thanks. That's the questions. Anyone else?

We have a user, Jim. Please state your full name and limit your comments to three minutes. Thank you.

Yes, am I on? Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Jim Rickman. I'm a resident of Los Alamos. I wanted to note that it was interesting that we started the meeting with the proclamation recognizing the 250th anniversary of this country. I think I and a lot of people, probably including the founders themselves, strongly believe that one of the hallmarks of good governance is our leaders' ability to preserve the liberties and rights of the citizens. And you guys find yourself as counselors in a pretty unique position to do that. And a long time ago, I sat up there on the dais as a counselor, and I used to ask a couple of questions whenever things came before me in the agenda. One of those things is, is there a problem here we're trying to solve? And two, is it good for the citizens as a whole and is it protective of their rights and liberties? I think in terms of the bottom line up front, this is an important enough issue that it behooves this community to actually have an open hearing and an open forum on this. Um, it's not going to be solved this evening. And so I'd urge the council to actually invite the public to come and express their feelings about this so that we can all have a say on it. Otherwise it's just hearsay. The second thing, um, I was really interested in what the chief had to say, and I appreciated what he said. But one of the things I find troubling after his presentation is he talked a lot about transparency and he talked a lot about openness, and yet these cameras were implemented in this community in 2023 and nobody said boo about it. In the presentation this evening, The chief didn't have answers about how much this is costing the community, because it is our money. It's for taxpayers. And didn't have a lot of those types of answers. And so it would be nice to get some more concrete answers, and in particular about what it is we're trying to solve here. Los Alamos is a very low crime rate community. The security clearances that most of the residents have help ensure that. what are we trying to do? Why do we need a system of cameras that watch every single person 24-7 to maintain a low crime rate? Is there something going on that people aren't telling us about? I don't think so. I think this is just one of these cases of trying to get the latest and greatest technology because everybody else is having it. So I hope you'll, in closing, I hope that the council will indulge this community with a full, open, robust public hearing about the desirability of this surveillance system. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rickerman. Do we have anyone else?

Chair, I'm not seeing any additional hands.

Okay. So... I think there were a couple of questions that we could probably get answered tonight. So I think the one question was about do companies that are managing these license plate readers, do they share data? Sorry, what was the question? So the question came up about the different companies that provide the service, license plate reader technology. Do they share data?

My understanding is you have to be part of the network to, in other words, they don't. But am I wrong about that? Does Axon share with... I know for Axon specifically, we determine who we share. So... I don't even know that you can share it with another company. You wouldn't share it with another company. Could you share it with another agency that uses a different company? I don't know the answer to that.

Yeah, I think you need to come up to the – or is that the request to come up to the microphone? I think so that we can –

I don't want to speak as an expert on Axon, but the Axon system, the way I understand it, the internal system to go from one, let's say, for example, Albuquerque has it. For us to be able to share that data, we have to do an MOU with them. OK, and then we can share their data that they got their axon system and they can get ours. But that's only if you really have a reason to be able to go for that. You'd still have to go down there and you'd call somebody up, call the detective, call somebody and say, hey, I'm looking for this plate. It was in your area. It's not just all of a sudden now we get all their vehicles. It's we still have to kind of give a reason why we're looking for it. And they, and if they wanted to, if they had a crime that was in their city and the vehicle was connected to Los Alamos, they would be calling us and asking us for that information too.

Okay. Uh, then I think a question came up about the encryption of the data. So is there, so though I think that gets into some of the details that maybe we had skirted around.

The encryption of the data, what, what Axon does with it. I don't have a clue. I wouldn't be able to speak to that.

So we can't answer that one tonight. Um, making sure I could, other questions I think that came up that we might be able to answer tonight. I don't believe that, oh, I guess, so there were quite, I guess, the first commenter asked about some things I was asking about, which were, I guess he was asking more specifically about how many times is it accessed and, you know, how often is it audited Do we have numbers like that tonight?

No, sir. And again, with Axon, we're really going to have very limited data. But I can evaluate that with respect to WatchGuard and get back to you.

OK. And then there were a couple of comments about cost and benefit, basically, as well, that we already kind of went over. So I don't think I missed anything that none of the counselors heard. Sound like we could probably answer tonight. So I think we'll go on to the next item and we'll have a chance to comment then. We'll see if it's related to the other items. So the actual business item we have tonight, so let's introduce that one so we can get to it. So we're on 10B, 21723-26. It's possible approval of services agreement AGR 26-810 with Medaxo Traffic Management USA for automated speed enforcement services. So, you know, we have Chief Scambalone.

Chair, righty, counselors. Literally 20 minutes before this meeting, procurement called me to notify me that in fact we had finalized the contract. We were very close. We thought we were going to have it done. a couple of weeks ago and then last week for sure. And then finally we got through it. So kudos to procurement and the attorney's office for working through that and getting that to be able to be brought in front of you tonight. So basically this is a continuation of the discussions we've had on the speed camera issue. This proposal identifies five cameras to be placed throughout Los Alamos County and then the subsequent program that is needed to support that overall program. Next slide, please. Again, we launched this in 25 after public hearings and council approval aimed to deter speeding and reduce traffic accidents. What happens with revenues are dictated by state law. Locally, they can only be used to fund traffic safety initiatives. We've been working with the laboratory. which aligns with broader community safety efforts. Again, we are committed to improving public safety, which is our job, while protecting privacy and maintaining public trust. We focus on fair data-driven enforcement to prevent accidents. It's not intended to monitor lawful activity or to conduct mass surveillance. We have policies. regarding the use of technology, both at the county and department level. Similarly, with the LPR data, all data is under the county's control, accessible to only authorized personnel and subject to audit. Next slide. So now that the contract has been signed, we would be able to begin implementation in July. Um, again, working with the vendor and also, um, with Lana on a very, on a particular identified, uh, camera sites, uh, you know, because of that partnership, it's hard for me to say because I don't control, um, everything in that scenario, but we would work diligently to, uh, get this program up and running. I know we have, we've, uh, settled the hearing officer part of this, which again, an individual has the right, if they receive a citation, to contest that citation through a hearing officer, and the rest of the infrastructure would be established by working with and through the vendor per contract. We expect, and it's contractual, that The agreement requires all cameras to be fully installed, all five, and operational within six months of the effective date. Next slide, please. So we selected potential locations through data analysis and also including, you know, locations more serious and unfortunately some of our fatalities. We reviewed traffic volume, traffic speeds, crash history and severity, school zones and pedestrian activity, citizen complaints and community concerns, traffic engineering analysis. And we will select those final, we make final determination on those areas based on that objective data. And just to give a summary of the process, the camera detects a vehicle exceeding the enforcement threshold, captures images of the violation. Contractor reviews the images and enters the violation event. A police officer must review and approve all violations before a notice is issued. Registered owner information is being obtained Through authorized motor vehicle databases, a warning notice or fine is generated and mailed to the owner. The recipient may pay the fine, submit an owner's affidavit, or request an in-person, virtual, or paper hearing. The contractor processes the payments, updates account status, and deposits revenue in their county-designated account. Contested cases proceed through the hearing and adjudication process. The final case disposition reporting and record retention are maintained in the system. Next slide, please. The program represents an important investment in the safety of our community. It's intended to reduce dangerous speeding behaviors, prevent crashes, and encourage voluntary compliance. We remain committed to implementing this program in a transparent, responsible manner. Again, we'll make final determinations on camera location based on documented safety needs. And again, just trying to improve roadway safety while maintaining the public's trust and confidence. And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Chief. Do we have any technical clarifying questions from Council? Councilor Hinn?

Thank you, Chair. Chief, you had mentioned before that the speed cameras and Axon are different, this LPR. How are they different? I mean, we already have cameras of some sort already. So now you're talking about different cameras. We probably talked about this, but could you please try to... Sure. Refresh my memory and it sounds like there may be some people in the public that also want some clarification on this.

Chair, righty, counselor, hand. In many ways, they have similar technologies. They're a camera that's taking a picture of a license plate. And I think it's the distinction then, I guess, lies in really the purpose and then what happens after the fact. And so these speed cameras are uh, are part of a system that uses that information to, um, provide a warning or citation to individuals who choose voluntarily choose to, to drive beyond the, the threshold, which we establish. And, uh, and then after that, there's a process and there is a hearing officer and there's due process and, and, uh, all the infrastructures that's required to sustain the program. But in the initial, I guess, collection of that data and that plate, they are very similar to the LPR. Then the LPR on that side of it, it's not, there's no enforcement directly related to LPR. It's just a database that can be queried for really investigative purposes, public safety purposes, that type of thing.

So it seems to me like it's a duplication.

Well, there's no radar mechanism with an LPR. It doesn't tell me how fast you're going.

So why do we need Axon?

The axon provides the investigative piece, the public safety piece, the piece where to answer the gentleman's question about how if we don't use facial recognition, how would we have found the person in Colorado? It doesn't use facial recognition. It's a plate. And when a plate hits in a particular area, we get a hold of that. agency and say, hey, can you look for this person they're missing? They locate the vehicle. It has nothing to do with facial recognition. Utilizing the data for those types of situations, it's not an enforcement. There's no radar. There's no laser. It's just a database, just a collection.

Wouldn't we have a lot of the same questions that we just discussed on the previous item for this item about privacy, et cetera. I mean, there were many, many questions. Why wouldn't those apply to this? It seems like they still apply, but this is a different system.

Um, uh, chair, righty counselor hand. Yeah, sure. I can appreciate that. The same concerns would, would, would, uh, that people have with LPRs would have with speed cameras. Um, uh, you know, I, I go ahead.

Um, chair counselor hand, I guess, um, they are related and we actually had them as one item. The only reason we had them as two items is because this is consideration of a contract to add more of them. Right. And, um, and just as a friendly reminder, council did already authorize the, or the local ordinance that would, um, allow us to even provide, um, and, um, engage in this new program so that we do, we did have to pass an ordinance in order to do this new program.

Okay. So you're saying add more. So we already have some out there.

I will give you my layman's kind of interpretation of the difference. One of them is just collecting data, anyone that drives by. So if I drive by, it's going to collect my data. If You know, to the chief's point, if I walk out to my car right now, someone could write down my license plate of the car I get into to connect it with me if they would like. So one is just collecting data that we will keep for a period of time. And if there is a need to look for something that that data might contain something helpful, we would do that. But it would be specific to a need. That's how it's treated. This other one is we collect this data if you break the law. So it's no different than an officer out there with their radar. with the exception that it's not the same because that one, the ticket and the violation and how it's handled is not civil. So that's just, but part of when council authorized this, it was also, if you recall, we added a patrol to the traffic unit that it was a tool, it was a deterrent tool. Our goal is compliance, but we knew that it also,

won't stand alone we need officers out there to also be present and be managing the the speeding right and and i remember all that i remember the conversations that we had in the past but um you know we're still you know getting a lot of um you know, concern from the public about this. And, you know, some of the questions are, they just, the cameras appeared. And I know we talked about it here in council sessions, but I guess we, did we have any kind of town meeting on this? I, you know, I just remember we had a number of discussions here in council I can't even remember when it was. It was a while back.

I think, Chair Brydie, Counselor Hamm, I think it's certainly something we can do more publication on. I was actually watching the news and I was watching Albuquerque's news and they were reinitiating a program, a rebranding of their program, and they had it out there where they were. They only start ticketing at 11 miles over, and these are the reasons, this is the process you can take if you want to appeal and say that, prove that your car was stolen or there's either reasons how you can get out of it. So I think given this new axon contract and the interest we're receiving now from the public, there isn't any reason why we can't do more of that now. I think in the past, I can't, I don't really know the reasons why it wasn't an issue because I don't, I believe we talked about it quite a bit. I think maybe it was embedded in maybe our conversations with body worn cameras or dash cam. And those also read license plates, by the way. So it's not just the cameras that are out there or maybe by the side of the road. It's also those other, um, cameras that we've been using for much longer than a few years have that sort of license plate recognition capability as well. So I think it's just a more heightened awareness and probably just a heightened concern about AI data being used for nefarious reasons. Reporting on that has just raised awareness and we understand and we think those are valid concerns that we have as well and we should take forward in any implementation. Yeah.

Yeah, I hear you and I appreciate the extra explanation because I think that somehow we need to get that information out to the public that this was discussed on numerous occasions and how we address any mistrust. Thank you.

Yeah, Councilor Herman.

Thank you, Chair. Chief, thank you for all this information. Are the speed cameras going to be permanently mounted in certain locations? For some reason, I was thinking some of them might move around a little bit.

Chair, righty, Councilor Herman. My initial... Vision was to have both fixed and mobile. In fact, I'll take ownership of this. That's kind of what stalled some of the procurement parts of this because in the end, we weren't able to do that because it was a piggyback procurement process. So these five are fixed. Okay, thank you.

Okay, we have any other questions? So obviously we can see the price of this. So it's more than $400,000 a year, right? So this might be a little bit more than we thought it was gonna be originally, is that correct? Or we didn't have an estimate for this?

Chair, I believe this was within what we budgeted. And I think just for the public's purposes, This is not our purpose for doing it, but it is revenue generating. And that revenue generated would go back into funding the program so that money could go back to subsidizing costs for this contract moving forward. But again, that's not our primary purpose is not to create a revenue source, but there will be revenues from fines generated.

Okay. So do we know approximately, so we have a two-person traffic unit, right? So how much does that roughly cost per year to have it?

So, Chair Reidy, basically you're asking what's the cost of an officer and the car and the equipment. Off the top of my head, on a That's a hard question to answer because what do I take a piece of? But I'm going to say $200,000, give or take. Per officer? Per officer. Okay.

That was a budget option at the budget hearings. We can look it up and certainly confirm.

I was just wondering how comparable it was to, because that's been one of the questions, like how much is this costing? I think that the other discussion was about logistically where you might want to do enforcement. It might be hard to actually have an officer. So this wasn't strictly because of safety issues on the truck route or but it's places that are difficult to enforce. Yes, sir, that's true. And there's been radar detectors that some people thought, I think, were tracking doing this on laboratory property, but as far as we know, that's not happening, right?

There was no enforcement.

There was no enforcement. It was just tracking how fast people were going, and we saw how fast people were going, and they're going very fast. So... This might be more... So I think there was a problem we were trying to solve, I think, with the whole approach. So the traffic unit and then these cameras.

I agree. And to the earlier question, when we began these conversations, it was in the aftermath of some pretty horrific situations that the community dealt with. And I think the community was... wanting us to come to with some sort of solution. And this, this, this was part of that solution.

Yeah. And, and so we have not seen, so we, we see, um, you know, crashes that cause problems and injury. Um, so that hasn't gone away. So, right. So, uh, okay. Um, So I don't think there's any other questions. Oh, sorry.

No, that's okay. I didn't get my hand up before you started asking your questions. Chief, you mentioned that this service agreement includes five fixed cameras. Are they new cameras? Are they cameras that we already have in place for license plate reading? What are we purchasing with this service agreement?

Chair Reidy, Councilor Call, they're brand new. We don't have any existing cameras or infrastructure for this project. If approved, we would begin working with the vendor on implementation and by contract would have them in place within six months. As I indicated before, we have to work with LANL on some cameras that would be positioned on their property. But they're brand new. We don't have any existing hardware or anything for this other than a contract at this point.

And so these cameras would be used strictly for the purpose of the speed monitoring? Yes.

And the program for... Yes. Yes.

So... Approving this doesn't do anything to address the concerns with the existing automated license plate recognition cameras. Is that true?

That's true.

So at some point, the concerns that have been raised, I think we need to go back and address those with other cameras, whether we approve this service agreement tonight or not. That's a statement. Sorry, you don't have to answer that. So, all right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Cull. Zoran, did you want to add?

Yes, I just want to get back to the costs. I went back to the budget options at the budget hearings for 2025, and what was included was staffing for the one traffic unit was estimated at 260,000. The additional vehicles and outfitting, which was a one-time cost where staffing's recurring was another 200,000. And then the speed ticketing or speed cameras project was a recurring 300,000 a year.

Okay. So it's a little bit more, but we had some different concepts for that. Okay, so thanks for the clarification. So I think we'll see if there's any public comment on this item.

Thank you.

Chris Lucchini again. I believe the accidents that we've had, and we've had some pretty nasty ones, have all been related to distracted driving, which is a euphemism for people being on their damn phones. So I don't know if these speed cameras, presumably they're going to be taking a picture of the driver. And... Honestly, that's where enforcement really needs to be is on this distracted driving. It's absolutely insane the number of people staring at their screen as they're driving. I don't believe speed is the real issue here. It's people not paying attention. And I don't have the statistics. You guys probably do. But I would just ask, in your opinion, is that distracted driving more of a proximate cause to these accidents we're having than speed. That's my question. Thanks. Okay. Thank you.

I would like to know who's the contractor who's collecting the data. Um, that's one question. The other question, of course, again, it comes with privacy. Um, what is it used for? Same questions as I had before. Um, I appreciate council members actually bring up questions from the public and, and, um, giving us a voice. And that's why I'm here today. Um, why if this was approved before in like 2025, right? Did the public not know about this? Number one, number two, um, it's, If the public doesn't know anything about it, we can't give consent or not consent. I mean, who's making these decisions? I'm all for public safety. I don't have an issue with that at all. But again, it's like, who's getting the information? Who's the contractor? Who implemented this? What are the ramifications of actually using the system? And how is this used in a broader sense? is this going to be used in a broader sense, not just like facial recognition and biometrics, and is this going to continue in the surveillance state? The problem is bigger, and this is only a lead into the bigger problem. So I think we need to be really, really discerning on what is, and the contract already has been signed. I mean, who knew about this? Who knew? Oh. I see. Again, I have no problem with public safety, but we need to be discerning about how is this implemented. It's not just what it sounds like it is, because the problem is much bigger. And I really urge you to all research and see what's going on in the world and see how this is being used by the technocracy oligarchs and do some research on that, please. Thank you.

Would you mind stating your name for the record so that the clerk?

Yes, Heike Wilcox.

Okay, thank you. Thanks. Okay, not seeing anybody else coming up for this item. Mr. Brown, can you check online to see if there's some public comment on this item?

We have an online attendee with the name JJ. Please state your full name and limit your comments to three minutes. Thank you. JJ, are you able to unmute? Last call for JJ online.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you now.

Oh, sorry about that. JJ Mortenson here. I have some concerns about the speed cameras, although I'm generally in favor of them. But because so many GPS mapping programs alert drivers in advance to upcoming speeding cameras, I think it's more important to have ones that can be moved because People do get those alerts on their GPS or they find out through the grapevine where they're located and people will slow down in those areas and then quickly speed up as soon as they're out of sight. I would like to know if the speed cameras that are being purchased are going to be taking photos of the driver and or the license plates. I see in my limited experience that many of the worst drivers, speeders and reckless drivers, have obscured their license plates either by covering them with plastic coating or some have even scoured off the paint. And if it's only going to capture license plates, we may be missing the worst offenders.

OK, thank you for the comments. OK, so we did get a couple questions. I think we can probably get the answers to. So there was, I guess, the question about, And we do see the weekly crash reports. And so we do see what's listed as the cause. So the question was, is it distracted driving or speeding, or what is the general cause of crashes?

Chair Reidy, I agree with Mr. Lucchini regarding the problem of distracted driving and how that is a major factor and contributor to the accidents i think the value of the speed camera program is the data that we presented you with a report on this but how the speed affects the severity of the of so if we can slow people down even to the last commenters point if they're even if they're using a gps camera locator and slowing down you know that is that is the goal now do they wait till they're passed and speed up again i agree with her 100 and that's why we want some mobile solutions but We're just not, we can't contractually do that right now. So yes, distracted driving is a problem, but by reducing speed overall, we're hoping to impact the severity of accidents overall.

Okay. So then there was the question about the, I guess the provider, but that's what's in the package. So we have a different... It's a different company. And so there was like the data management and so forth with Midoxo traffic management. But is there anything that you can tell us about how they manage the data and whether or not how it's shared or not shared contractually?

There's no... mechanism or purpose to share the data other than with a hearing officer and with the vendor. The data contractually is owned by us and it's not sold similar to the other contract we talked about. Okay.

Okay. I think those were the questions I heard. Right. So Okay, so I think that we're ready to see if there's a councilor interested in making a motion. Councilor Edmund.

Thank you, Chair. I move that council approve services agreement number AGR26-810 with Medaxo Traffic Management USA Incorporated for automated speed enforcement services in an amount not to exceed $2,132,676.00 plus applicable gross receipts taxes and authorize the county manager to execute the agreement.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion by Councillor Edmond, second by Councillor Cole. Do we have any Councillor comments?

Yep. Thank you, Chair. We We talked about this topic at length at a work session in White Rock sometime in the past year at length, had a lot of public input. There was a lot of coverage about it in the media with Boomtown, LA Daily Post, The Reporter, that we can have nice things, Substack. It's been a topic of heightened concern with pedestrian accidents. observations of careless driving, people concerned about speeding, and then with the distracted driving, absolutely. We talked about that a lot. We talked about it again at budget hearings, and we talked about it again when they, well, I don't know if we talked about it, but then there was an introduction of ordinance, and I believe we had an introduction of ordinance on this, and then a public hearing, and then now we're here to approve the contract. I personally And people I talk with want to see people slow down and want to people change their behavior about their driving habits. And this is one tool. It's not going to solve everything. None of these things are going to be perfect. But I think taking steps is better than not taking steps. And I, for one, feel like the benefits outweigh the costs when it comes to speed cameras and trying to modify behavior in a way that's safer for everybody in our community, visitors, residents, young people, elderly people alike. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hammond. So did you want to go next?

Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I agree. At the time we spoke about this, again, at length, Chief supplied us with some horrifying data about the speeds that people were going up the truck ramp. And it was horrifying. I completely agree. Distracted driving is a huge issue. But if this slows some people down, this is a good tool to have.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilor Henn, did you have a comment?

Yes, thank you, Chair. So what I'm seeing, you know, is a lot of concern from the public as they see the cameras and they're starting to notice some of the changes, which brings more questions about, you know, how the data is protected, etc., What can be difficult is the fact that there are months or even years between the time that we're discussing some of these subjects and discussing them at length. I mean, we have had some very long discussions about this topic and trying to decide what to do. And so, you know, there are these periodic, you know, discussions about it. And not everybody is keeping up to date with everything. And it's hard to keep track over long periods of time as we move through all the different stages. And that's similar to a lot of the different things that council is involved in. I guess... You know, it's just an ongoing interest of mine to communicate to the public over and over and over again, remind people, you know, when this started, how far we've come. Somehow we need to just keep that communication going so that everybody is reminded, you know, that this isn't new. You know, this isn't a surprise. this wasn't something that just appeared. There were many discussions that happened before we got to this stage. And that's all I'd like to say is just how we better inform the public or keep the public informed so that they feel confident that what we're doing has a reason. And I think all the things that Councillor Havenman said right on, you know, all those things are, you know, that's a very good summary of the things that we discussed. So that's all I'd like to say.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Hand. Councillor Rieger.

Thank you, Chair. Well, as I said before, I think we had this discussion not too long ago. I don't think it really addresses the issue because we have lots of other issues involved in the accidents or all of them have other causes and it's very expensive. So I will be able to support this.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We're here. Um, have counselor Cole.

Thank you. Counselor righty or chair righty. Um, Yeah, I mean, I agree 100% with Councilor Haveman and the things that she mentioned. I also agree with many of the public comments that were made on the previous issue. I don't feel that the fixed cameras for speed monitoring and enforcement necessarily – We'll have the same concerns, although they could, and I know that we need to be looking at the data that's collected and make sure it's only used for the purpose intended. I do think we need to go back and look at the other ALPRs at some point in the future to see what we're really looking at. and make sure that the concerns that were previously raised are addressed. This is just one tool that we talked about after a significant fatality occurred on the main Hill road. And it's not going to address everything just like the four-way stop at urban and the cross street, anyway, on urban is going to bring back the person that was recently killed there. And it may not have even prevented that accident, but it could prevent future accidents. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Cole. Councilor Neal-Clinton?

I will not be supporting this, but that's a conversation we've had previously in many of the other meetings. I am, while I understand the need, while I even understand the choice, I, County Manager Laurent spoke about that the revenue, it's late. The revenue generation portion was not a big factor in this. It is still a factor, so it would behoove law enforcement to again find more people or be aware of more people. It's a double-edged sword. And for me, anything that impedes or could impede our freedoms, I think I cannot support this. Like I said, I understand what you're saying. I understand why you're saying it or what the reasons are, but I am not on board with this. So I will not be supporting.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Neal-Clinton. So, yeah, as we, I've heard from other councillors that we've been talking about road safety, and seriously, since 2024, when there was fatal crash on, you know, near the food co-op, and 502 going out of town. So it's been something we've been talking about for a while. So we do understand the balancing of, you know, information and making sure that, you know, we approve this contract. We actually follow up on any privacy issues that have been raised. And I think more broadly, as we already heard from our counselors that, we have to have more discussion with what's the rationale for the other technology we're using and actually where are they located? And so I think that's a different discussion to have. So I think that that technology is just like having a notepad, but no one will be able to write down all the license plates. So it's automated. So it's collecting a lot of data, and that's why there's a concern. If it wasn't automated, there wouldn't be the same concern. So this is the same concept, but it's not going to be collecting the data for every plate. It's going to be collecting plates of the ones that are speeding. And we heard there's people who can get around it by obscuring their license plate. are stealing someone's license plate. You know, there's various things that people might do, but that's why we have other, you know, officers, there's the traffic unit, uh, that is going to help. I mean, they can't catch every person that's, you know, driving distracted. I can tell you almost every time I'm driving, I looked and there's somebody on their cell phone, right? So we have a hands-free ordinance. We enacted that too. And I think one of the questions we got from, um, One of the local press was about how effective or not these are. And so we had other discussions about other things we can do. So it's not one thing. There's basically creating roads that are inherently more safe. Now, that generally means that people are going more slowly. You can't drive as fast on those roads. So that's a difficult thing for the public to accept, but that's one of the options is to have roads that you can't drive real fast on or used to being able to get somewhere really fast. Uh, but that comes at a price as we know. So, uh, I'll be supporting this. Um, and I appreciate the comments about, you know, not being aware of, we were discussing this and, um, And I think we just need to do better to try to get that information out. Councillor Edmund.

Thank you, chair. I just, I know it's late, but I think this is such an important topic and it was important when we started this a year or so ago, I just wanted to make three additional comments. I think it's important that we not frame this as a response to fatalities that we've had in our community. I think this, for me, this is more about people feeling safe when they're a pedestrian on Central Avenue or when their high school kids are driving to high school for the first time on Diamond and when we're driving up and down the truck route. And to me, that then relates to my second point that there's, while I really respect Councillor Neal Clinton's feelings and perspective on this. I think there's also the perspective. This is, I think that I and others in the community should feel and have freedom to feel safe when they're out on our roads. And when, and we have the data and you could just observe it anecdotally across Northern New Mexico, we have a speeding problem and a careless driving problem and a distracted driving problem. And third, I just wanted to remind people that this, this, program includes an appeal process. So and so if someone feels like they were wrongly cited, they have a way to appeal it. So I just want to make sure that people remember that. And I also neglected to mention all the ways that the county communicated through the county line newsletter, press releases, etc. Besides what was covered by the all our media outlets. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So I think it's, let's call the roll.

Councillor Regor?

No.

Councillor Cole? Councillor Cole?

I'm working. Yes.

Councillor Haveman? Yes. Councillor Herman? Yes. Councillor Reidy?

Yes.

Councillor Neill-Clinton? No. Councillor Hand? Yes. Motion passes 5-2 with Councilors Rieger and Neal Clinton opposing.

Okay, like record show, the motion passes 5-2 with Councilors Rieger and Neal Clinton in opposition. So I want to thank everybody that came tonight just for these items, and I appreciate your input. And we'll... look at having the engagement that was requested about the license plate readers at some future date, hopefully fairly soon. So appreciate you reaching out and coming tonight. Okay, so now we're on to, I think, on to item 10C. It's item 21667-26. It's discussion and possible approval of purchase agreement for Los Alamos School of Gymnastics. And we have Ms. Laurent.

Thank you, Chair. This is also an item council has heard previously, so I will keep it brief, also given the hour. But the... Last year, we were contacted by Ms. Louie Janicki in the Los Alamos School of Gymnastics that they were not going to continue services and wanted to ask the county to purchase the building that they own on county land. Through that process, there was a negotiated purchase price of $500,000. And we were given direction to negotiate the purchase sale agreement. And so we worked with the School of Gymnastics and their attorney and our attorney's office. And what's before you tonight is authorization to execute the purchase under the terms of the agreement as attached in the item. And with that, I will stand for questions.

Okay, do we have any technical or clarifying questions from council? Not seeing any. So is there any public comment on the end? Please come up and just state your name.

Hello, my name is Miles Boe. I serve as president of Los Alamos School of Gymnastics Board of Directors. First, Chair Reidy, I'd like to thank you and the rest of the council members for considering the purchase of the building. I'd also like to thank our great county managers, Anne Laurent and Juan Real, for their willingness to meet with us and to discuss options and possibilities. We have received... so many inquiries from the community about the disposition of our building from both children groups and adult groups, from recreational and sports to arts and crafts type ventures, and also from social groups looking for places to meet and even private businesses looking for space. There's a great interest from the community for space, as it's no surprise that space is in short supply in our community. I would like to recognize Louie Janicki as the heart and soul of our program. In her decades of service to our community raising children, our hearts are broken at the cessation of activity. But I would like to make one clarifying point for the council members that although Louie Janicki is owed a great debt of gratitude for her service, she is not an owner of the building. And I just wanted, I don't know that there was a misunderstanding, but I just wanted to clarify if there was, that there is no individual who is selling the building. Our organization is a 501 organization. nonprofit charitable organization. There are very clear IRS rules about what the assets of such an organization can be used for. It is our intention that after selling the building, all of the organization's debts will be paid off and the remaining funds will be put into endowment college scholarships. These actions are planned and approved by the LASG board in 2025 prior to the cessation of activities As president, I intend to carry out this last directive from our board upon its sale, and I thank you for your consideration. Okay.

Thank you very much for being here tonight. Okay. So I think, is there someone else online? Okay. Okay.

There's an attendee, Lisa Reeder. You are now unmuted. Please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes. Thank you.

Hi, it's Lisa Reeder again. I would like to say, of course, like the rest of the community, we're very sorry to see the cessation of activities at the School of Gymnastics and thank Louie and her board for all their years and years of raising our children. and thank them and Los Alamos County for working on this agreement. I believe that building and that location can be a great ongoing benefit. As Miles said, there are many groups that have expressed an interest in it, and I think it is certainly in the interest of the community to have the county purchase that building and have it continue to be used. So thank you guys for working so hard on it. Okay, thank you.

Next, we have Louie Janicki. Please, you are now unmuted. Yes, thank you.

Miles said most of what I had planned to say. Chairman, righty, counselors, the administration and legal counsel on both sides and Miles, I'd like to thank you for all you did to bring this to the point that we are. And I wanted to reiterate as Miles did, this money goes back to the children, it's the children's money. Now my name has been on things for over four decades and the LANB had me sign on the original promissory note because I was a constant. The building belongs to the children, always has and it will go into endowment scholarships for the children. Thank you all so much.

Thank you. Okay, so was there a counselor interested in making a motion? Councilor Hand?

Thank you, Chair. I move that council approve the purchase of the Los Alamos School of Gymnastics building located at 555 North Mesa Road in the amount of $500,000 and authorize the county manager to move forward with executing the purchase sale agreement and close on the real estate transaction.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

So we have a motion by Councillor Hamm, second by Councillor Herman. Is there any discussion? Okay, not seeing any discussion. Can you please call the roll? Counselor Hand.

Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Cole. Yes. Counselor Neal Clinton. Yes. Counselor Rigor.

Yes.