[0:04] silence then the pledge of

[0:05] allegiance led by councilor

[0:13] davis.

[0:14] I pledge allegiance

[0:15] to the flag of the united states

[0:16] of america,

[0:18] and to the republic

[0:19] for which it stands,

[0:21] one nation,

[0:22] under God,

[0:23] indivisible,

[0:24] with liberty

[0:26] and justice

[0:35] for all.

[0:36] >> Councilor Jones: thank you,

[0:39] and thanks for being here this

[0:39] evening.

[0:41] Let's start with a motion to

[0:46] approve the October 17, 2018

[0:50] minutes.

[0:51] All those in favor?

[0:53] Those opposed.

[0:54] Motion carries.

[0:57] We have no proclamations and

[0:57] awards.

[0:59] Let's start with public comment.

[1:02] How many do we have?

[1:04] Each speaker will have three

[1:05] minutes.

[1:06] Please come forward when your

[1:24] name is called.

[1:26] >> I'm staff attorney with the

[1:27] new mexico environmental law

[1:28] health center.

[1:30] I'm speaking on behalf of

[1:31] community organizations and

[1:32] individuals.

[1:35] I request that I be given more

[1:37] than three minutes to address

[1:39] the board on three different

[1:40] agenda items.

[1:43] It's the first preliminary

[1:44] matter.

[1:45] >> Councilor Jones: we can give

[1:47] you four minutes.

[1:49] >> thank you.

[1:50] On behalf of our clients, we

[1:52] have submitted extensive

[1:56] comments on the santolina

[1:57] serviceability letter.

[2:00] i would like to admit that into

[2:04] the record at this time.

[2:06] We have provided the board with

[2:07] four major broad issues that we

[2:11] have with the santolina serve

[2:12] ice

[2:14] serviceability letter.

[2:17] The first concern is the board's

[2:20] failure to satisfy it's

[2:23] statutory mandidate for

[2:25] regulations for water and

[2:27] wastewater service to

[2:30] developments outside out of

[2:32] water authority service area and

[2:34] the current legal existing

[2:34] commitments.

[2:36] We ask that the board satisfy

[2:40] that statutory mandate and give

[2:44] policy regulation to service

[2:46] letters, and availability and

[2:47] development agreement for

[2:49] proposed developments such as

[2:51] santolina and when it comes to

[2:55] the water authority expanding

[2:56] services beyond service area.

[2:58] Without policy and regulations

[3:02] and the executive decter and

[3:09] keef operation officers behave

[3:10] ing

[3:13] an an ad hoc way.

[3:16] The history that was omitted by

[3:19] water authority staff in that

[3:20] letter.

[3:22] The approach to santolina.

[3:24] The western albuquerque land

[3:26] holdings actually submitted a

[3:28] request for serviceability

[3:30] statement back in 2014.

[3:33] It was for three of the

[3:34] developments.

[3:36] Santolina, and del rio.

[3:40] Documents obtained indicate the

[3:43] chief operation officer said the

[3:48] water could not approach these

[3:51] three developments separately.

[3:56] The impack -- impact of the

[3:58] three are interrelated.

[4:01] We ask to not handle this in a

[4:05] piecemal approach and deal with

[4:06] the impacts together.

[4:08] the third concern we have

[4:10] regarding the serviceability

[4:12] letter is that it appears to be

[4:16] base d on an unlawful return

[4:17] flow credit.

[4:19] We ask the board to direct

[4:23] Mr. Stomp to explain how the

[4:25] water and wastewater scheme does

[4:27] not violate existing state

[4:30] engineer regulations regarding

[4:33] use and flow credits.

[4:35] We are also concerned that the

[4:37] serviceability letters proposed

[4:40] water and wastewater scheme

[4:44] relies on specklative bosqu

[4:49] water reclamation plant.

[4:52] Primarily when the water 2120

[4:58] plan and the 2020 study

[5:02] indicate provide nonpotable water

[5:05] to existing users and future

[5:07] committed growth for irrigation

[5:14] to large turf areas, and nowhere

[5:18] in 2

[5:20] 120 does it say the plant

[5:22] can be used for santolina.

[5:26] We ask the board to direct

[5:28] Mr. Stomp to address that

[5:28] concern.

[5:29] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[5:32] >> thank you, very much.

[5:39] >> Councilor Jones: next

[5:40] speaker.

[5:40] >>

[5:43] >> I'm with the south valley

[5:44] regional association.

[5:48] Last month I spoke regarding the

[5:50] serviceability letter and I'm

[5:52] submitting written comments

[5:54] tonight regarding the

[5:55] serviceability letter.

[5:59] I'd like to provide a copy to

[6:02] your staff to provide to you and

[6:06] the other members of the board.

[6:08] My statement reads, water

[6:10] authority development agreement

[6:13] for the santolina development

[6:14] should still not be considered

[6:17] by the albuquerque bernalillo

[6:20] county water utility authority

[6:25] until stan tech consulting

[6:26] independent analysis of the

[6:28] water supply utility charge and

[6:30] proposed water resources charge

[6:33] is complete and adopted by the

[6:34] board.

[6:37] The board is charged with

[6:38] stewarding water supply and

[6:40] infrastructure and in specific

[6:45] water and wastewater expansion

[6:49] ordinance a19c requires that the

[6:51] board that any expansion of

[6:55] water infrastructure be at no

[6:58] expense to rate payers.

[7:00] The water serviceability of

[7:03] October 1, 2018 does not require

[7:05] to the santolina developers to

[7:07] pay the 137

[7:09] $137 million of the

[7:14] building of bosque recycling

[7:14] plant.

[7:16] In this case 2020 to serve the

[7:18] plan "b" phase one.

[7:19] If the water authority

[7:21] development is provided using

[7:23] only the current water service

[7:32] charge of $1,669 for phase one,

[7:35] 4,900 households that totals 15

[7:36] $15

[7:39] million they contribute toward

[7:42] the re clu

[7:43] cluimation plant.

[7:45] That will leave the remaining

[7:47] cost for the recycling plant to

[7:50] be paid by existing rate payers,

[7:53] and other sources of funding

[7:55] both federal and state.

[7:57] Given that the water authority

[7:59] policy is to ensure existing

[8:02] rate payers does not pay for the

[8:04] cost of expanding the system to

[8:08] new users and given the burden

[8:13] of existing rate paysers we

[8:14] courage the watt authority to

[8:17] not consider the development for

[8:17] santolina.

[8:19] >> Councilor Jones: thank you,

[8:19] sir.

[8:24] >> thank you, Madam Chair.

[8:25] >> good afternoon.

[8:27] As usual, I don't have enough

[8:30] time to cover everything in

[8:30] detail.

[8:34] I'm going to skip to the punch

[8:34] line.

[8:36] I've said how many times how I

[8:39] think having markers to choose

[8:41] whether or not there's success

[8:43] in reaching goals is needed.

[8:45] Here's an example.

[8:49] Ground court pumping has to stop

[8:52] even more, double from what

[8:54] we've been stopping in order to

[8:56] reach the goal set out in

[8:58] chapter five.

[9:00] Santolina, the idea of allowing

[9:02] that to come in and start

[9:03] pumping more, which is what the

[9:05] letter of serviceability talks

[9:07] about will increase the pumping

[9:11] and that will upset the whole

[9:12] plan.

[9:14] So, before the serviceability

[9:17] letter is finalized, I think

[9:21] there needs to be ground water

[9:22] plan.

[9:26] There needs to be -- sorry, the

[9:27] determination has to be of what

[9:29] the water supply charge should

[9:30] include.

[9:33] And that is under review by a

[9:34] consultant of yours.

[9:37] I suggest that until that is

[9:40] done that -- how do you know

[9:41] whether or not there's going to

[9:44] be no next ex-spence.

[9:47] I recommend the utility adopt

[9:51] full cost recovery rather than

[9:54] occural accounting so that the

[9:56] cost of supplying water, the

[9:58] environmental cost, resource

[10:03] cost, and so son so on are met

[10:08] to adopt policy of water

[10:08] neutrality.

[10:10] It would be one May to ensure we

[10:13] didn't increase pumping and

[10:14] depletions which are hardly

[10:16] being covered without extra

[10:17] water.

[10:25] Remove the boskque project.

[10:28] I will submit my comments which

[10:30] are in more depth.

[10:31] Thank you.

[10:38] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[10:44] >> I live in the southival

[10:47] valley,

[10:48] I'm the vice-President Of the

[10:49] neighborhood association.

[10:52] I also agree that the

[10:56] serviceability letter has to be

[10:56] redone.

[11:00] It doesn't answer a lot of the

[11:00] issues.

[11:05] We're concerned with the no net

[11:05] expense

[11:06] expense.

[11:09] We don't know how they're do it

[11:11] without expense to the

[11:12] taxpayers.

[11:14] We're worried where the water is

[11:18] going to come from for

[11:20] santolina.

[11:22] I'm going to read a couple

[11:23] points from his letter that I

[11:25] will submit to this board.

[11:27] Concerning the water

[11:29] serviceability letter, the plant

[11:33] construction schedule has been

[11:34] accelerated.

[11:37] It was to be built after 2050,

[11:41] now it's for the water and sewer

[11:42] for santolina.

[11:46] The capital cost were included

[11:47] in 659

[11:50] $659 million and the total

[11:53] estimated cost for phase.

[12:01] That in -- October 2018 called

[12:04] water and sewer base of cost.

[12:09] The bosque do not appear in the

[12:10] serviceability of the master

[12:13] plan set fourth in table two.

[12:15] What is the basis for the 49

[12:16] $49

[12:19] million share of the cost which

[12:19] exceed 100

[12:20] $100 million?

[12:26] Why are bosque's costs

[12:27] eliminated from requirements?

[12:29] The water authority is not being

[12:30] transparent about it being used

[12:32] for santolina and the funding

[12:34] request for state and federal

[12:35] funding.

[12:40] This will be on agenda c-1845

[12:44] and 46.

[12:49] The 2018 technical memorandum

[12:52] concludes that the new water

[12:55] capacity is required, but no

[12:57] ground water facilities can

[13:00] collect lines to convey to the

[13:02] new storage tanks.

[13:06] It includes a water cost

[13:07] subtotal.

[13:08] Water utility authority

[13:10] officialvise told developers

[13:14] that ground water is in the

[13:14] property.

[13:17] No additional water capacity is

[13:19] available for the area.

[13:20] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[13:23] >> May I submit this for public

[13:23] record?

[13:27] Thank you, very much.

[13:28] >> Councilor Jones: that's all

[13:30] of the speakers for this

[13:33] evening, if he comes in later

[13:34] we'll give him an opportunity to

[13:35] speak also.

[13:38] Let's move to the next agenda

[13:41] meeting, the next scheduled

[13:45] meeting is January 30, 2019 at

[13:53] 5:00 P.M. In the vincent griego

[13:53] cham

[13:54] chambers.

[13:55] We're going to move the next

[13:59] item, that's ob-18-15 sewer

[14:01] water and development

[14:03] infrastructure presentation by

[14:10] Mr. Stomp.

[14:10] .

[14:12] >> good evening, Madam Chair,

[14:15] members of the board.

[14:16] Thank you for the opportunity

[14:19] for being here tonight.

[14:21] I'm going to present to you the

[14:23] water and sewer infrastructure

[14:25] requirements I'm going to

[14:26] outline in the serviceability

[14:28] statement or letter depending on

[14:30] how you call it.

[14:32] We did this at the last board

[14:34] meeting, and we're asked to come

[14:35] do it again.

[14:36] I apologize for you that heard

[14:38] it once.

[14:40] You're going to hear it again.

[14:42] Hopefully I'll do a better job

[14:44] since this is the second time

[14:44] around.

[14:47] So the time line as you know,

[14:49] level a and b1 were approved by

[14:51] the county.

[14:55] The land use plans are reprec

[14:56] you

[15:00] without a land use plan we would

[15:03] never entertain a water sewer

[15:05] serviceability request.

[15:07] That explains the 2014 request

[15:09] that went before us the reason

[15:12] why we did not address that is

[15:14] because we did not have the land

[15:15] use plan.

[15:17] The serviceability plan was

[15:22] made,individually.

[15:22] We had to do them collectively.

[15:26] That's one response to Ms. Parks

[15:26] request.

[15:30] We did issue -- there was a

[15:32] developer serviceability issue

[15:35] January 11, 2018.

[15:37] There was information provided

[15:40] and this board adopted 2120

[15:44] which had goals to reduce from

[15:48] 135 gallons to 110 per capita

[15:49] per day.

[15:54] The developer remitted

[15:56] submitted those to be consistent

[15:57] with the plan.

[16:00] The serviceability was issued on

[16:02] October 1, and the next step is

[16:04] to issue an availability

[16:05] statement and come up with a

[16:06] development agreement that would

[16:09] be conditions of service that

[16:12] have to approved by this board.

[16:15] No service commitments have been

[16:19] made until it's approved by this

[16:20] board.

[16:21] Just to go through where we're

[16:23] at, the santolina development as

[16:25] you know is a very large

[16:27] development on the west side of

[16:29] about 14,000 acres.

[16:32] Phase one was approved for about

[16:35] 4300 acres.

[16:44] Population projections is about

[16:44] 9 5

[16:45] 95,000 people.

[16:47] It's about the size of rio

[16:50] rancho in terms of magnitude of

[16:52] people served.

[16:55] Level "b" was 22,000.

[16:57] The water supply requirements

[16:58] based on the supplemental

[17:01] information and based on 110 per

[17:03] capita per day are provided

[17:04] there.

[17:08] 2700 feet for the level b1, and

[17:12] 11,000 for the full build out.

[17:16] In terms of population

[17:18] projections, these predicted in

[17:22] the 2120, we graphed out the low

[17:24] growth strategy or scenario.

[17:25] We have three different

[17:29] scenario 2120.

[17:31] Low, medium, and high growth.

[17:34] When you project the existing

[17:36] population and cup pair that to

[17:40] the future growth projections we

[17:43] allocated a certain percentage

[17:47] of growt

[17:48] side consistent with today.

[17:49] We do our best to figure out

[17:52] what the basis of how this

[17:54] population would be broken up

[17:56] between existing east and west

[17:58] and future development east and

[17:58] west.

[18:00] To put in perspective in terms

[18:02] of the long term future strategy

[18:04] for the water authority and

[18:06] santolina compared to that,

[18:08] under the low growth santolina

[18:11] represents about 15% of the

[18:13] total population over the next

[18:14] hundred years.

[18:16] A very significant portion of

[18:18] that under the no growth

[18:18] scenario.

[18:22] If you look at the medium growth

[18:23] scenario, santolina represents

[18:26] about 11% of the total

[18:29] population by the year 2120.

[18:32] Even under the medium growth it

[18:33] still represents large

[18:35] percentage of the growth of

[18:38] service area in the future.

[18:40] So this is a graph of the future

[18:42] water demands, they're broken

[18:46] down to reuse, and potable

[18:48] demands and showing wastewater

[18:50] flows frojected in the future as

[18:55] you go along from 2018 to 2065.

[18:58] We're showing the level b1 and

[19:01] a, these are projected

[19:03] population and demand

[19:05] projections for potable and

[19:06] nonpotable.

[19:09] Level b1 is 2700 acre feet.

[19:16] And11,700 including

[19:18] potable and nonpotable.

[19:20] In terms of the demand over

[19:22] time, we have the three

[19:25] different growth scenarios, low,

[19:27] medium and high growth.

[19:29] These are the demand projections

[19:31] for those different scenarios.

[19:35] Under the no growth snai

[19:36] cenario our

[19:43] future demand is going up to 21

[19:48] 210,000 acre feet for the high

[19:48] growth.

[19:51] In terms of santolina projected

[19:54] overall demands, we projected in

[19:56] the 2065 what percent of the

[19:59] water demand would be served by

[20:00] santolina which is 9%.

[20:03] We projected the difference

[20:06] between west side and the future

[20:10] demand totally and that portion

[20:11] would be attributed to

[20:12] santolina.

[20:14] You have a box on the right side

[20:17] with the potable and non-potable

[20:19] as it relates to the future

[20:22] demand in the 2120 plan.

[20:24] So as we talked about last

[20:26] month, we talked about what was

[20:27] the first step in determining

[20:30] what the requirements for

[20:31] santolina would be, the first

[20:34] step was to determine what the

[20:35] legal commitments are.

[20:37] Who are we serve

[20:38] ing in the

[20:39] service area?

[20:41] Who is not being served in the

[20:41] service area?

[20:44] We have a commitment that we're

[20:48] going to provide water and

[20:51] service to everyone in the area.

[20:52] We need to figure out the

[20:53] development agreements approved

[20:56] by the board and the impact in

[20:57] the existing service area.

[21:00] And the contracts we have with

[21:02] existing entities like intel and

[21:05] the village of kral

[21:06] corales.

[21:09] We have existing contracts to

[21:13] provide wastewater treatment and

[21:15] a million for corrales.

[21:18] When you look at that and

[21:20] compare it to the system, we

[21:22] have to analyze what the

[21:24] capacity issues are in terms of

[21:25] the commitment.

[21:27] We looked at the water, sewer,

[21:28] and reuse system.

[21:31] There's no reuse on the west

[21:31] side.

[21:32] There's nothing to talk about

[21:34] other than the future potential

[21:37] for reuse which is the bosque

[21:39] plant and reuse proposed for

[21:39] santolina.

[21:41] On the water side we have ground

[21:45] water wells on the west side.

[21:49] And the transfer of surface

[21:51] water from east to west.

[21:55] We have two lift station, which

[21:57] is called lift station 20 which

[22:00] takes the flow from the west

[22:02] side across the river to the

[22:03] south side plant.

[22:06] We evaluated the capacity to see

[22:08] if there was deficiencies and

[22:12] how we would be making up those

[22:16] deficiencies for those that

[22:18] would be exasperated by them.

[22:20] We have the existing demand

[22:24] shown there, we have ground

[22:26] court as one measure of ply on

[22:27] the west side.

[22:28] We have demand on the west side,

[22:30] and the existing ground water

[22:33] wells which are the dark blue,

[22:34] and we also have the light blue

[22:38] or hatch blue on of that they

[22:43] shows the ground water capacity

[22:43] committed.

[22:45] If you look that ground water

[22:47] capacity line, the legal

[22:49] agreements is above that.

[22:52] We're already obligated with the

[22:55] ground water supply on the west

[22:55] side.

[22:57] Any additional ground water

[23:00] pumping would require new

[23:01] infrastructure or infrastructure

[23:03] to be used on the east side to

[23:05] move over to the west side.

[23:07] On the wastewater side we looked

[23:09] at the interceptor system and

[23:11] the capacity of the outing side

[23:14] water reck lumakes plant.

[23:18] Inplant is 76 million gallons a

[23:19] day.

[23:21] We will not expand that plan.

[23:23] Any future wastewater is going

[23:26] to be constructed flew satellite

[23:27] systems.

[23:28] There are two other systems that

[23:30] have been approved by this board

[23:33] that are part of water 2120.

[23:36] The idea is that as we grow, the

[23:39] sewer plant at the south side of

[23:40] albuquerque would stay the same

[23:44] and we would build satellite

[23:45] facilities to serve that.

[23:48] We would reuse that water as a

[23:49] drinking water supply.

[23:52] That's part of the water 2120

[23:52] plan.

[23:54] We have existing deficiencies

[23:56] for capacity of ground water on

[23:58] the west side, and we have

[24:00] interceptor and other capacity

[24:03] constraints on the west side

[24:10] also.

[24:11] In terms of the packet, there's

[24:14] two additional is slides,

[24:15] infrastructure requirements as

[24:17] we talked about we're phasing

[24:18] the infrastructure in over time.

[24:22] The first phase to construct the

[24:28] plant, the bosque plant has 4

[24:33] million gallons a day, so by

[24:35] constructing it we're freeing up

[24:37] 4 million gallons a day.

[24:41] In addition, we're freeing up

[24:43] interceptor capacity.

[24:48] The bosque plant transitions

[24:53] existing use to free up

[24:55] interceptor capacity that allows

[24:58] santolina to construct and add

[25:00] new population in the first

[25:01] phase.

[25:02] In the second phase you're

[25:04] required to build a new

[25:06] wastewater treatment plant that

[25:08] is able to serve their reuse

[25:10] needs and the last phase of the

[25:11] development they will build a

[25:14] new wastewater plant or expand

[25:16] the plant and combine that with

[25:19] service water and use it as

[25:20] drinking water.

[25:22] Reuse becomes a big component.

[25:24] Using the existing supplies that

[25:24] we have.

[25:26] The is wastewater that is

[25:29] generated on-site at santolina

[25:33] will be future use for

[25:34] nonpotable but also drinking

[25:36] water supply.

[25:39] With that, Madam Chair I'm glad

[25:40] to answer any questions.

[25:41] >> Councilor Jones: thank you,

[25:42] Mr. Stomp.

[25:43] Any questions?

[25:44] Councilor davis.

[25:45] >> Councilor Davis: thank you,

[25:47] Madam Chair, thank you,

[25:48] Mr. Attempt.

[25:50] I wanted to follow up on a

[25:53] couple questions we had

[25:54] previously and address the

[25:56] questions we heard tonight.

[26:00] I tried to boil down your big

[26:03] picture stuff to something I can

[26:03] understand.

[26:08] Under our water 2120 plan, we've

[26:11] accommodated for the area's

[26:13] planned growth.

[26:14] In other words, with all of the

[26:15] infrastructure that this board

[26:17] and this authority has planned,

[26:19] we can accommodate our planned

[26:21] growth with all of the pieces.

[26:23] But the question I see about

[26:27] santolina is, are we going to

[26:30] expand our service area so much

[26:33] that 9% of the water and the

[26:35] capacity we need for future

[26:37] growth is allocated to a new

[26:41] area, coo -- to me that sounds

[26:47] like we'll have a 9% deficiency,

[26:49] or that would limit growth in

[26:50] the current area.

[26:56] Is that the trade-off here?

[26:59] >> so, in the water 2120 plan we

[27:01] did not make the distinction of

[27:03] where growth happen.

[27:06] Our service area as defined by

[27:08] state engineers is all of

[27:09] bernalillo county.

[27:12] Santolina is not outside of

[27:13] service area.

[27:14] The land use decisions are not

[27:16] made by us, and they dictate

[27:18] where that growth might occur.

[27:20] Our water supply would be

[27:21] available to serve that growth

[27:23] in santolina and because we

[27:26] allocate that supply to them,

[27:27] that would stop future

[27:29] allocation of that same amount

[27:30] of supply.

[27:34] Just like if we approved in the

[27:34] development agreement tonight,

[27:36] that would be service area

[27:37] committed to somebody else.

[27:39] However it's not going to take

[27:41] water supplies from our existing

[27:42] service area.

[27:44] We have enough supplies to serve

[27:46] within our existing boundary,

[27:48] that is the purple area on that

[27:48] graph.

[27:51] To the extent that we make a

[27:55] commitment today we're

[27:57] committing those resources into

[28:00] the future which could go to

[28:03] land use or expansion in other

[28:05] areas.

[28:06] >> Councilor Davis: we talked

[28:08] about remaineders of available

[28:10] capacity

[28:12] capacity, east and west side

[28:13] being different.

[28:15] Santolina would take 9% of our

[28:19] future capacity, right?

[28:22] What percent of the west side

[28:25] remainder would santolina take

[28:25] away?

[28:27] What would it limit the

[28:28] remainder to be?

[28:30] >> as I tried to state, and

[28:33] maybe I wasn't very good at it,

[28:36] we have a deficiency.

[28:38] We've legally committed our

[28:41] existing capacity both on the

[28:43] interceptor and ground water

[28:44] side.

[28:46] To our development agreement,s

[28:50] contracts, and our service area

[28:52] on the west side.

[28:57] We're at the service limit.

[28:59] It's going to need additional

[29:02] infrastructure or exchanges with

[29:08] the bosque plant.

[29:10] >> thank you to Madam Chair and

[29:12] the staff for reschedule

[29:13] ing the

[29:16] November meeting and redoing

[29:17] this conversation.

[29:21] Can you explain where we are

[29:23] procedurally in terms of what

[29:25] this board is doing tonight and

[29:30] what will be asked to do in the

[29:33] future?

[29:35] >> we are in the first step of

[29:36] the process.

[29:38] We've issued serviceability of

[29:42] the letter, which outlines the

[29:43] infrastructure requirements.

[29:46] We have to have an availability

[29:47] statement which is a commitment

[29:49] of service in some respects with

[29:52] the xepgds exception of the

[29:55] fact that it has to come before

[29:56] this board.

[29:59] There's been no commitment of

[30:01] service, we've outlined the

[30:03] infrastructure agreements that

[30:06] we need and that are proep

[30:07] posed

[30:07] there.

[30:10] >> thank you.

[30:13] One of the speakers expressed

[30:15] concerns about return credits,

[30:18] can you speak to that issue?

[30:21] >> I don't believe that we have

[30:23] proposed unlawful return flow

[30:24] credit.

[30:26] I'm not sure what that means.

[30:29] In the bosque serviceability

[30:31] letter we proposed a new

[30:34] diversion on the river, that

[30:37] requires certain permitting to

[30:38] be done.

[30:41] If we request a return flow from

[30:45] the bosque we have to go through

[30:48] the process with the state

[30:49] engineer.

[30:51] We've said that in the

[30:54] serviceability statement.

[30:57] They're not permits that would

[30:59] never be required, but they

[31:01] could be required.

[31:04] >> we also heard a lot of

[31:05] question about ground water.

[31:08] Would you mind going back to the

[31:10] chart with the red graph and

[31:11] blue graph.

[31:15] I don't know what number it was.

[31:16] >> this is it here?

[31:19] >> yes.

[31:23] Could you talk about what that

[31:25] difference between that

[31:27] available ground line and in

[31:30] insolid bar means in the chart?

[31:34] >> sure, I would be glad to do

[31:34] it.

[31:37] So, when we looked at the total

[31:39] demand on the west side and the

[31:41] existing ground water capacity

[31:45] we have, what we have available

[31:47] ground water is water that is

[31:48] available for today.

[31:52] we have more wells on the west

[31:54] side than we're using because

[32:03] they have high arsenic arsenic

[32:04] concentrations.

[32:05] If you project what we're doing

[32:09] today and our legal commitments

[32:12] in the future, even if we added

[32:14] the existing ground water that's

[32:16] unavailable, and it's

[32:18] unavailable because of arsenic

[32:19] treatment, we don't have enough

[32:21] to meet the obligations on the

[32:22] west side.

[32:26] We're in a deficit scenario.

[32:31] >> Mr. Stomp, can I ask the

[32:33] basic question of whether

[32:36] santolina increases pumping of

[32:37] ground water?

[32:38] >> the answer is no.

[32:41] The way this plan was formulated

[32:44] was to be consistent with the

[32:48] policy, which is 20

[32:48] 120.

[32:53] It limits ground water use by

[32:55] transitioning to other supplies.

[32:58] That's what water 2120 is all

[32:58] about.

[33:00] No it will not.

[33:04] I will be glad to do a

[33:07] presentation to show how we

[33:09] think these resources will be

[33:14] allocated and how it meets water

[33:15] 2120.

[33:16] >> Councilor Jones: commissioner

[33:17] o'malley.

[33:17] >> Commissioner o'Malley: thank

[33:18] you, Madam Chair.

[33:20] There's been discussion back and

[33:24] forth about the source of water.

[33:29] You mentioned that it looks like

[33:33] like -- the well water for

[33:36] santolina is not ground water.

[33:37] It's since we're changing to

[33:44] mostly ebriver -- river water.

[33:45] Because there's changing in

[33:48] needs of the community, but

[33:49] further down where the water

[33:50] ends up.

[33:52] I'm hearing it's not the same

[33:55] water or not the same source of

[33:56] water, but it's the same source

[33:57] of water.

[33:59] You're changing it by cleaning

[34:02] it up, but it's really same

[34:03] source of water.

[34:04] I think that's important for

[34:05] people to understand.

[34:07] We've got two sources of water.

[34:09] Water coming down the river

[34:13] which is a portion of it is

[34:15] private water which we secured

[34:17] way back when.

[34:19] Which it effects the

[34:20] agricultural use.

[34:25] We've been pretty generous in

[34:27] holding water and making

[34:29] available for agricultural use,

[34:32] and I hope we can continue that.

[34:34] Of course, we don't know what

[34:36] the situation will be in in the

[34:41] future in terms of runoff and

[34:43] water.

[34:49] Am I misunderstanding this?

[34:52] We're asking this large

[34:55] development to say, yes you're

[34:57] going to put in a system to

[35:00] reuse, you're going to clean it.

[35:02] You're going to put in

[35:04] wastewater statement, you're

[35:09] going to have pay it, and we're

[35:11] really talking about two sources

[35:12] of water.

[35:17] Am I wrong in that?

[35:20] >> I don't think you're wrong.

[35:22] For example, if you're pumping

[35:25] ground water and you a

[35:29] wastewater return flow, is that

[35:31] wastewater or ground water?

[35:34] It's the use of that same ground

[35:34] water.

[35:36] If you're diverting service

[35:38] water, you're not consuming it,

[35:40] it's available through

[35:41] wastewater returns.

[35:45] It's still surface water.

[35:47] Nonetheless it's the same source

[35:48] of supply.

[35:49] People have different ways of

[35:50] saying it.

[35:52] But the answer is yes, we have

[35:55] surface water and that surface

[35:57] water can be native water and we

[36:00] have ground water and we have

[36:01] return flows or wastewater

[36:05] associated with those supplies.

[36:06] >> Commissioner o'Malley: it's

[36:09] the same source of water?

[36:10] >> correct.

[36:13] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[36:14] Commissioner quezada.

[36:14] >> Commissioner Quezada: we know

[36:17] that the growth of the city has

[36:20] always been in the last 20 years

[36:21] on the west side.

[36:28] All the way a far up a ventana

[36:30] ranch, the city of albuquerque

[36:32] has allowed developers to build

[36:34] homes all across the southwest

[36:34] mesa.

[36:37] My question is why haven't we

[36:39] had those developers look at how

[36:41] they use water and why weren't

[36:44] they part of this whole plan?

[36:48] Why didn't they pay for water

[36:50] treatment on the west side?

[36:54] We look at statistics on thou

[36:56] city is growing and maybe not

[36:59] growing, but my concern is is

[37:02] that the slow growth that is

[37:06] taking place is moving west.

[37:10] Why did the city of albuquerque

[37:12] not require developers before

[37:15] we're talking about this big

[37:16] development on the west side on

[37:20] how we use water and the way

[37:22] water is being used and reused

[37:25] and all of these sorts of

[37:25] things?

[37:27] Can you answer that question?

[37:29] >> I don't know that I can

[37:30] answer why the city of

[37:31] albuquerque did that.

[37:33] As the policies for the city

[37:35] prior to the water authority,

[37:39] and now water 2120, we serve

[37:41] those developments that were

[37:43] approved land use whether it was

[37:45] city or county, we served those

[37:47] consistent with the policies.

[37:50] Our policies have changed as

[37:52] we've learned and managed and

[37:53] continued to grow and our

[37:55] understanding of the various

[37:56] supplies our policies have

[37:57] changed.

[37:59] In the past we're 100% ground

[38:00] water.

[38:03] When we understood that was not

[38:04] sustainable, we changed to

[38:06] surface, ground and reuse.

[38:09] Now we're going to have to go

[38:11] further with reuse and conserve

[38:12] more and more.

[38:15] All of these things play into

[38:16] how growth has occurred in

[38:17] albuquerque over time.

[38:19] The growth that did occur did

[38:23] pay their fair share, just like

[38:25] everybody else paid their fair

[38:26] share.

[38:27] The charge is going to be based

[38:28] on infrastructure requirements

[38:32] as part of water 2120, before it

[38:42] was based on purchasing water

[38:42] roirth

[38:43] rights, the basis for that

[38:44] calculation has changed and the

[38:47] infrastructure requirements has

[38:48] changed.

[38:50] We're not changing the way we do

[38:53] business, what's changed is the

[38:54] understanding and how we serve

[38:55] those communities.

[38:57] They've paid their fair share,

[38:58] what our understanding of the

[39:00] fair share was at the time.

[39:02] Our policies change.

[39:06] Water 2120 is not the end of the

[39:07] story.

[39:09] We're going to come back and

[39:11] revisit this and evaluate

[39:14] climate change, and we've in

[39:15] incorporated for climate change

[39:17] with the best available

[39:17] information.

[39:19] It could get worse.

[39:21] We have that process in place.

[39:24] Those policies are going to

[39:24] change.

[39:29] Our conservation plan is 110

[39:31] gallons per day.

[39:32] We're going to continue to grow

[39:35] and serve our customers, and our

[39:36] policies are going to continue

[39:38] to evolve as that does too.

[39:41] I hope that answer your question

[39:42] commissioner quezada.

[39:44] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[39:45] Councilor pe}a.

[39:46] >> Councilor Pe}a: thank you,

[39:48] Madam Chair.

[39:50] Mr. Stomp, answer basic

[39:53] questions for me.

[39:56] We're talking about the water of

[40:00] santolina and any other proposed

[40:03] development whether small big.

[40:07] When we look at the population

[40:10] growth it ends at a million or

[40:11] something like that.

[40:15] Does the amount of water we use

[40:16] change?

[40:18] >> Madam Chair, councilor pe}a,

[40:20] yes, it does change because we

[40:25] have a conivation goal.

[40:27] That's probably not the end of

[40:29] the story, we're going to reduce

[40:31] our use.

[40:35] We've reduced our use 1gpc even

[40:37] though it's a drought.

[40:38] We're going to continue to

[40:39] change that.

[40:42] We're going to continue to

[40:45] evolve it in that way.

[40:49] Our demand has reduesed

[40:49] ed

[40:50] ed

[40:51] ed --

[40:52] reduced.

[40:54] I would consider that those

[40:55] things are -- are we always

[40:57] going to continue to use less

[40:58] water?

[40:59] I would say no that's going to

[41:00] be the case.

[41:04] Demand is going to increase some

[41:05] day, of course.

[41:06] >> Councilor Pe}a: I should be

[41:07] more clear.

[41:09] My question is, whether we build

[41:13] within the city now or whether

[41:16] we add a development, is the

[41:19] amount of water necessary

[41:22] outside of all of the reuse

[41:24] measure we're going to take,

[41:28] will I I think I under the question.

[41:32] In 20

[41:33] 120 we assumed that

[41:36] population growth, it was inside

[41:40] or outside the boundaries, the

[41:42] water use associated with that

[41:43] population growth will be the

[41:47] same no matter where it occurs.

[41:48] >> Councilor Pe}a: so, it

[41:49] doesn't change?

[41:54] So whether it's all of a sudden

[41:58] we had the availability to buy

[42:00] and purchase property somewhere

[42:02] else outside, it would remain

[42:03] the same.

[42:07] So my other question is that in

[42:10] terms of the infrastructure, so

[42:12] there's probably some concerns

[42:15] in terms of infrastructure being

[42:18] built as we grow the city, would

[42:22] those needs be comparable if we

[42:23] just grew within the city

[42:26] because of old infrastructure?

[42:28] >> that's a very difficult

[42:30] question to ask, it really

[42:32] depends on the demand.

[42:36] If the demand in the

[42:42] redevelopment areas, like knob

[42:42] hill.

[42:44] The demand stays the same.

[42:48] If we build high rise, we're

[42:53] going to need more demand and

[42:54] fire protection needs.

[42:56] It will require additional

[42:56] infrastructure.

[42:58] We have that going on right now.

[43:00] There's development along

[43:03] central avenue where it's not

[43:06] capable for water demands.

[43:08] Developers are responsible for

[43:09] building water infrastructure to

[43:10] do that.

[43:11] It's depending on what the

[43:13] development looks like.

[43:14] Whether it's inside or out

[43:17] infrastructure can still be

[43:17] required.

[43:18] >> Councilor Pe}a: one last

[43:19] question.

[43:23] So if we don't do this

[43:25] development, you know, really

[43:28] we're growing as a city and as

[43:30] commissioner quezada stated,

[43:32] people are moving to the west

[43:32] side.

[43:35] One of my fears is that I'm born

[43:38] and raised in the south valley

[43:42] and all the agriculture and farm

[43:45] lands and how unique it is to

[43:48] the city of albuquerque, my

[43:53] concern is that would densify

[43:57] that area especially with what

[44:01] you have -- you have the abc

[44:02] comprehensive plan that is in

[44:04] hopes that the county is going

[44:06] to adopt that.

[44:10] I see that is densifying the

[44:12] south valley and it would have

[44:14] the same growth and need.

[44:19] I'm afraid that it would egroed

[44:23] egroed -- erode the south

[44:24] valley.

[44:28] >> it development did occurred

[44:31] in this area or some place else,

[44:35] it's going to effect what it

[44:37] looks like.

[44:40] Where would people locate if

[44:43] santolina wasn't developed, I

[44:46] don't think I can answer that

[44:46] question.

[44:48] >> Councilor Jones: commissioner

[44:52] o'malley.

[44:52] >> Commissioner o'Malley: I

[44:55] think I just wanted to lay out

[44:58] that when we're doing

[44:59] redevelopment projects we have

[45:00] existing infrastructure.

[45:03] I'm glad we're putting resources

[45:06] into existing infrastructure and

[45:11] we have infrastructure.

[45:13] Frankly that money didn't get

[45:15] put in there when taxes were

[45:19] being paid for years and years,

[45:21] so we have the infrastructure

[45:23] that needed rehab and I'm glad

[45:25] we're do it.

[45:29] We're having to rehab that no

[45:30] matter where the infrastructure

[45:33] is, it's not totally new

[45:33] infrastructure.

[45:35] I think to be -- we've never

[45:38] seen anything like this in terms

[45:41] of how large the development is.

[45:44] We're talking about thousands of

[45:44] acres.

[45:47] We've never seen request for a

[45:49] zone change that large.

[45:50] We've never dealt with the

[45:52] development agreement of this

[45:53] nature.

[45:54] It's all new to us.

[45:57] I believe the water authority is

[46:03] really -- I think we're doing

[46:05] great work making sure existing

[46:09] rate payers, and the

[46:11] agricultural need, because it's

[46:15] important to balance those.

[46:17] I just wanted to make that

[46:18] statement because I think

[46:20] sometimes we get a lot of

[46:21] criticism.

[46:24] I just want to make that in

[46:26] terms of bond capacity.

[46:29] We're putting a lot of resources

[46:30] into capital.

[46:32] Not only in the existing areas,

[46:33] but places all over the west

[46:36] side that have not been

[46:36] rehabbed.

[46:37] I think it's important that the

[46:39] resources go there as well.

[46:43] It looks like the plan, when

[46:45] you're looking at this picture,

[46:47] you're looking at reuse.

[46:48] We're going to have to clean up

[46:49] a lot of water.

[46:52] This isn't the standard plan.

[46:54] This isn't we're just going to

[46:57] take water, we're looking at a

[47:00] whole new approach delivery.

[47:05] I think it's very thoughtful and

[47:07] we'll see as we move forward.

[47:09] I just think you have thought a

[47:11] lot of things through, I

[47:12] appreciate that.

[47:13] >> Councilor Jones: commissioner

[47:14] quezada.

[47:16] >> Commissioner Quezada: we did

[47:21] put new infrastructure in los

[47:23] padillas, and we're able to do

[47:25] that with the help of water

[47:26] authority and bernalillo county.

[47:30] There's still parts of the unin

[47:32] unincorporated area that is

[47:33] needed.

[47:37] I wanted to address the comment

[47:39] from councilor pe}a, I'm the

[47:45] commissioner and I overlook the

[47:47] south valley.

[47:49] I spent the first year and a

[47:53] half to protect anderson farms

[47:57] and I lost a big chunk of it.

[48:00] Every week, there's people who

[48:03] own land in the south valley

[48:05] that come from families that

[48:07] were farmers and growing and

[48:08] selling it.

[48:11] They're moving to the northeast

[48:12] heights where they have

[48:14] amenities and different types of

[48:16] ways of living.

[48:18] We have developers looking at

[48:19] that land all the time.

[48:22] It goes to the cpc, it doesn't

[48:24] come to me.

[48:28] If the cpc approves on that

[48:31] agricultural land, it's lost

[48:31] forever.

[48:34] As the city grows, I'd like to

[48:36] not see it grow on the

[48:37] agricultural land.

[48:39] I'd like to keep that for the

[48:42] future of albuquerque and

[48:43] bernalillo county because that's

[48:46] makes us unique than any other

[48:46] county.

[48:48] I wanted to address that because

[48:50] you don't see that much in the

[48:50] city.

[48:55] I see it in a weeky basis in the

[48:55] county.

[48:57] People are going after that

[48:59] agricultural land, they want to

[49:01] build apartments.

[49:04] And that's not what the

[49:05] southivaly is for.

[49:07] We have to figure out the

[49:08] compromise, and how do we serve

[49:11] the needs of how this city

[49:12] grows.

[49:14] I think we'll differ on how it's

[49:16] growing, or the way it's

[49:16] growing.

[49:19] I don't rely on statistics, I

[49:22] rely on what I see out my door

[49:25] and window when I'm driving in

[49:26] albuquerque every day.

[49:29] Those are my concerns and

[49:30] fights.

[49:32] I have to agree with

[49:32] commissioner o'malley that we

[49:36] have to really look at how water

[49:39] is used because that's precious

[49:40] to everybody.

[49:44] It should be just as precious to

[49:48] any developers moving west.

[49:51] Without water, why build

[49:53] anything and try to provide that

[49:54] for the city.

[49:57] I wanted to address that.

[49:57] Thank you.

[49:59] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[50:03] >> thank you, and I think we

[50:05] have many months to discuss

[50:05] this.

[50:08] We didn't talk about dollars and

[50:09] cents here.

[50:11] And I know some of the public

[50:15] comment were about full cost

[50:17] recovery, or premature given the

[50:19] water supply charge analysis.

[50:22] Could you speak to those points?

[50:24] >> I think the water supply

[50:28] charge will be coming, and the

[50:30] discussion will be soon I

[50:30] believe.

[50:32] Whatever that change is going to

[50:33] be it's before you.

[50:38] In terms of the no net expense

[50:39] policy.

[50:41] We're going to development in

[50:44] that document that is going to

[50:46] go with this document so you can

[50:48] see in writing and those around

[50:49] us that are concerned with the

[50:51] development will have an

[50:52] opportunity to look at the

[50:53] analysis that was done.

[50:56] We're committing to doing that.

[50:58] When we get further in the

[50:59] process we'll be doing that for

[51:02] you to show you how we meet the

[51:11] no net expense criteria.

[51:12] >> Councilor Jones: councilor

[51:12] davis.

[51:13] >> Councilor Davis: I just want

[51:16] to follow that quickly.

[51:20] No net expense, we throw that

[51:21] around, but I want to make sure

[51:24] the folks know how that's

[51:26] applied here.

[51:28] Are we applying the same rules

[51:32] to the santolina review that was

[51:34] applied to other developments?

[51:36] And I think the answer to that

[51:37] is yes.

[51:42] We apply a rule that says any

[51:45] new development whether it's ten

[51:50] houses or how many this is, must

[51:52] pay their own way.

[51:54] This board and this authority

[51:57] has ordinances that ensure our

[52:02] water rates don't double to

[52:07] subsdize someone else's private

[52:08] development.

[52:09] This is is a big number,

[52:12] whatever that number is, rough

[52:13] lae

[52:13] ly

[52:16] roughly -- once we get into the

[52:17] numbers for santolina.

[52:20] Instead of the 99,000 people to

[52:23] be served by santolina, if they

[52:24] were to break that into a

[52:26] thousand developments for 99

[52:29] people, we would go through that

[52:30] same evaluation process of

[52:32] existing infrastructure and

[52:34] existing capacity for each of

[52:35] those thousand request to

[52:38] accommodate the same thing?

[52:40] Each of those developers would

[52:41] have to pay whatever the

[52:42] requirement would be to add

[52:45] their people to the service.

[52:47] >> that's absolutely true.

[52:51] Whether it's big development or

[52:54] small development, the no net

[52:55] development clause applies.

[52:58] This happens to be a very large

[52:59] development.

[53:00] >> Councilor Davis: just as a

[53:03] term of reference.

[53:06] When mesa del sol came to this

[53:09] board the no net expense applied

[53:10] to this as well.

[53:13] They had to pay all of the

[53:16] infrastructure to meet the

[53:17] availability so that the payers

[53:20] didn't have to pay, is that

[53:20] correct?

[53:21] >> yes.

[53:23] >> Councilor Jones: any more

[53:23] questions?

[53:24] >> Commissioner Quezada: would

[53:26] they have to build a water

[53:32] treatment plant eventually we're

[53:42] -- we've got 10,000 homes with

[53:44] 25 different developers, and

[53:45] there's no water treatment

[53:46] plant.

[53:48] There's no reuse plan they have

[53:48] to pay for.

[53:52] We have to pay 100% of that

[53:53] don't we?

[53:56] >> mesa del sol is on the hook

[53:58] for a wastewater treatment

[53:59] plant.

[54:00] That value is 80

[54:03] $80 million back

[54:06] in 2002.

[54:07] Don't quote me on that.

[54:09] I apologize if that date is off.

[54:11] They're on the hook for a water

[54:13] system and a second phase water

[54:15] system to serve that

[54:16] development.

[54:18] They're allowed a capacity up

[54:27] front because we had more at

[54:28] the time.

[54:33] We call that the tijeras reuse

[54:33] plant.

[54:36] They are on the hook for the

[54:39] same type of infrastructure.

[54:40] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[54:43] i would like to make a comment.

[54:52] I'm going to let Mr. Waum speak

[54:52] first.

[54:54] >> good evening.

[54:54] Thank you.

[54:57] I think that actually subsidy is

[54:59] the key issue.

[55:04] To what extent will rate payers

[55:06] subsidize the developers trying

[55:07] to develop this property.

[55:10] I heard one interesting thing

[55:12] from Mr. Stomp that I support,

[55:14] you were told that an

[55:15] availability statement will be

[55:15] required.

[55:17] That's reversal of a position

[55:20] that I heard Mr. Stomp

[55:21] articulate only a very short

[55:22] time ago.

[55:24] I was heard that the next step

[55:25] would be the development

[55:27] agreement and the availability

[55:29] statement would be skipped.

[55:30] I'm concerned that the estimates

[55:34] in the serviceability letter are

[55:34] low.

[55:37] The estimates only appear in the

[55:38] albuquerque journal story.

[55:39] The serviceability letter does

[55:42] not contain the details of the

[55:42] 600

[55:47] $600 million figure that's been

[55:47] quoted.

[55:48] That 600

[55:51] $600 million figure omits

[55:52] components that are essential to

[55:55] provide service to santolina.

[55:59] It provides nothing for the

[56:00] water reclamation plant.

[56:02] It does not include facilities

[56:04] required for indirect potable

[56:05] reuse.

[56:08] My understanding is that is the

[56:09] plan for santolina, and

[56:11] background documents indicate

[56:16] that it must be the plan because

[56:23] assume -- there are no reclaim

[56:26] in the serviceability letter.

[56:31] Service also requires on

[56:35] facilities will be incredibly

[56:38] expensive to build and maintain.

[56:42] So the question for no net

[56:45] expense is will cost be

[56:47] recovered associated with these

[56:50] high marginal cost of operating

[56:53] these plants that would not be

[56:56] required if not for santolina.

[56:58] The serviceability letter says

[56:59] that the developer should

[57:01] reconsider it's feeze

[57:01] asibility

[57:02] feasibility.

[57:04] The feasibility of this

[57:05] development.

[57:10] Shunt -- shouldn't the

[57:11] feasibility statements be based

[57:13] on all of the costs instead of

[57:15] the partial costs listed to

[57:16] date.

[57:21] I would point out that the water

[57:23] in the blue graph do not match

[57:25] the figures in the text.

[57:30] They say the total capacity is

[57:31] 54.

[57:33] I'm concerned that the two I'ms

[57:37] on our agenda would request

[57:39] federal and state funding for

[57:44] the bosque plant, yet the

[57:46] serviceability letter does not

[57:47] indicate any responsibility for

[57:51] santolina to pay for the bosque

[57:51] plant.

[57:52] Thank you.

[57:55] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[57:57] Mr. Stomp do you want to respond

[57:59] to any of that?

[57:59] Thank you.

[58:02] Just a short statement.

[58:05] I know this is overwhelming when

[58:06] we look at the development of

[58:07] this size.

[58:11] When we look at it, it's the

[58:12] development.

[58:12] The santolina development.

[58:15] This is like any other piece of

[58:18] the city that's developed.

[58:20] I'm sure there's people here

[58:23] that were living in homes

[58:27] because they were built on

[58:30] private landownership.

[58:31] they developed a piece at a

[58:32] time.

[58:35] Even though it May have been 50

[58:38] acres or a thousand acres.

[58:43] I think we need to do is look at

[58:46] this big picture.

[58:49] This is a big undertaking for

[58:50] any place.

[58:53] What I see is the advantage is

[58:55] it gives the water authority,

[58:59] and the governing agencies an

[59:00] opportunity to set a standard

[59:02] for the entire project.

[59:04] I think that's being done by the

[59:05] water authority and I'm sure the

[59:09] county is looking at it also.

[59:10] This is one of those things that

[59:12] it's hard to see change.

[59:16] We love our city, but we also

[59:18] need to know there is change.

[59:20] I think the water authority is

[59:23] taking a really good stance on

[59:25] this knowing that this agreement

[59:28] goes with the land even if the

[59:31] current owners were to sell 200

[59:34] acres or 1 acre at the time.

[59:36] All of the costs go to each

[59:38] owner as they develop or build

[59:39] on the property.

[59:43] We have to take a bite at a time

[59:45] and see if it works.

[59:46] Thank you for being so

[59:47] interested.

[59:50] Thank you for continuing to give

[59:52] us your opinions.

[59:55] We we've appreciated everything

[59:57] you've contributed this evening.

[1:00:00] Let's move to next item of first

[1:00:07] reading of legislation.

[1:00:11] That is being handled.

[1:00:12] Good evening.

[1:00:16] >> good evening, Madam Chair.

[1:00:20] Introduction for rez

[1:00:22] solution to

[1:00:28] add an appropriation for fy19 to

[1:00:33] carry over expenditures from

[1:00:39] 1819, and we did miscellaneous

[1:00:43] adjustments to sure up.

[1:00:45] The state of new mexico and

[1:00:47] local division in regard to

[1:00:50] proving the fy19 budget.

[1:00:52] We're doing this clean up and

[1:00:55] moving the appropriations to

[1:00:55] fy19.

[1:00:57] I stand for any questions.

[1:00:58] >> Councilor Jones: any

[1:00:58] questions?

[1:01:03] Thank you, sir.

[1:01:05] Next on the agenda is the

[1:01:11] consent agenda.

[1:01:13] There's a motion and a second to

[1:01:18] approve the consent agenda.

[1:01:20] All those in favor?

[1:01:21] Those opposed?

[1:01:26] Motion carries.

[1:01:31] This is r-18-27 authorizing the

[1:01:33] removal of certain uncollectible

[1:01:36] accounts from the water utility

[1:01:39] authority accounts receive

[1:01:40] able

[1:01:40] accounts.

[1:01:42] >> this is what we do every

[1:01:49] quarter, we take and look at

[1:01:51] those sitting on the books that

[1:01:53] are four years or older.

[1:01:59] That's allowing us to write-off

[1:02:01] approximately $74,000 off our

[1:02:02] books.

[1:02:04] They're primarily residential

[1:02:07] properties that have not paid

[1:02:09] their bill in six or seven years

[1:02:12] and have not paid their property

[1:02:14] bills over the five or six

[1:02:14] years.

[1:02:20] We've deemed them uncollectible

[1:02:22] and ask that we move those off

[1:02:23] the books.

[1:02:24] >> Councilor Jones: there's a

[1:02:25] motion and a second for

[1:02:26] approval.

[1:02:28] All those in favor?

[1:02:29] Those opposed?

[1:02:33] Motion carries.

[1:02:37] We're going to c-18-45 which is

[1:02:40] 2019 legislative priorities.

[1:02:42] Mr. Sanchez.

[1:02:46] >> Madam Chair, I believe you

[1:02:47] skipped one item.

[1:02:50] >> Councilor Jones: sorry.

[1:02:54] I skipped

[1:02:55] skipped.

[1:02:58] >> this is our first quarter

[1:03:00] financial report, I'll make sure

[1:03:02] I move the slides this time.

[1:03:05] The first slide is your revenue

[1:03:07] compared to the prior fiscal

[1:03:08] years.

[1:03:11] We've generated about a million

[1:03:12] dollars less in revenue than we

[1:03:15] did last time.

[1:03:19] Consumption was down too

[1:03:23] highjuly.

[1:03:23] We're still projected to be at

[1:03:25] budget or above budget by the

[1:03:28] end of the fiscal year.

[1:03:31] This graphic, it shows the

[1:03:33] expenditures for the year.

[1:03:36] As you can see, the transfers

[1:03:39] are increasing, that's due to

[1:03:40] the additional 3

[1:03:41] $3 million we

[1:03:43] transferred to capital.

[1:03:45] All the other expenditures have

[1:03:47] been in line and actually what

[1:03:52] many of them decreasing.

[1:03:56] The next slide is just a quick

[1:03:57] depiction of our spending each

[1:04:00] month compare to rolling average

[1:04:01] for the year.

[1:04:02] August was a high month.

[1:04:06] We spent a lot of expenditures

[1:04:09] on power and chemtuals in that

[1:04:11] month as we run the water

[1:04:12] treatment plant.

[1:04:16] As we start ramping back down

[1:04:17] expenditures come more back down

[1:04:20] in line.

[1:04:21] Days cash on hand.

[1:04:25] At the end of fiscal year 2018

[1:04:29] we have almost 445 days of cash

[1:04:30] on hand.

[1:04:32] At the end of the first quarter

[1:04:36] we had about 325 days cash on

[1:04:36] hand.

[1:04:38] That's primarily because we

[1:04:39] spent 44

[1:04:42] $44 million on July 1 for

[1:04:44] debt service payment.

[1:04:46] That will go back up.

[1:04:52] The next slide is our capital

[1:04:55] expenditures.

[1:05:01] We caught up what we've

[1:05:05] underspent in fy16 and 17.

[1:05:07] It was a heavy first quarter

[1:05:10] last year, but we're on pace to

[1:05:16] spend on what we spend on fy19.

[1:05:21] Our ratio is 1.33 for debt, and

[1:05:22] 1.20 for all debt.

[1:05:26] As you can see, we almost hit

[1:05:29] three for fiscal year 18.

[1:05:33] We're at about 2.25 for fy19 so

[1:05:39] far, and this helps to get our

[1:05:44] triple a rating with the rating

[1:05:44] agencies.

[1:05:48] Next slide is water use

[1:05:48] production.

[1:05:50] The same slide after that is

[1:05:54] with consumption.

[1:05:55] Consumption production is down

[1:05:57] this year.

[1:05:59] It's at fy16 levels.

[1:06:08] It's below fy18 and fy17 levels.

[1:06:11] Basically, we had a really heavy

[1:06:14] July consumption, and people's

[1:06:17] water usage really dropped off

[1:06:18] after that.

[1:06:21] We're having a good year as far

[1:06:22] as reducing the water usage

[1:06:24] during the first quarter.

[1:06:27] And the last slide is depiction

[1:06:32] of how much we produce compare

[1:06:35] to consumption.

[1:06:40] July was a heavy rain month.

[1:06:42] As we start getting a lot of

[1:06:48] rain, our consumption levels

[1:06:49] drop off.

[1:06:50] >> Councilor Jones: are there

[1:06:51] any questions?

[1:06:53] I move approval.

[1:06:56] There's a motion and a second

[1:07:02] for fy-c-18-44.

[1:07:04] Motion carries.

[1:07:06] Now Mr. Sanchez.

[1:07:10] >> before you is our federal

[1:07:12] priorities, they're the same as

[1:07:17] last year and previous years.

[1:07:18] Under the water recycling

[1:07:20] program there's two reuse

[1:07:21] projects.

[1:07:28] the tijeras and the bosque reuse

[1:07:30] project which is along

[1:07:30] aung

[1:07:32] ong coors and

[1:07:37] mon

[1:07:38] montonao.

[1:07:40] These have nothing to do with

[1:07:40] santolina.

[1:07:42] If santolina were to come about,

[1:07:44] they would be required to

[1:07:48] construct bosque to free up

[1:07:50] drinking water supply as

[1:07:51] Mr. Stomp mentioned.

[1:07:54] The other projects would be to

[1:07:56] continue the support for

[1:07:59] kirtland air force base clean

[1:07:59] up.

[1:08:03] And the sandia national labs

[1:08:06] land fill and continue land

[1:08:08] water storage.

[1:08:13] And the endangered species act.

[1:08:16] I stand for any questions.

[1:08:17] >> Councilor Jones: commissioner

[1:08:17] o'malley.

[1:08:18] >> Commissioner o'Malley: thank

[1:08:21] you, Madam Chair.

[1:08:25] At one time, this was a couple

[1:08:27] years back, we had the

[1:08:29] discussion about the west side

[1:08:32] along central, there was group

[1:08:37] shot come to us -- that come to

[1:08:39] us asking for service.

[1:08:43] We actually amended the west

[1:08:45] side's plan along the central

[1:08:46] area which didn't have a plan.

[1:08:50] We put a plan in place in the

[1:08:51] county.

[1:08:52] Where is that now?

[1:08:56] >> my recollection is, you're

[1:08:59] talking about the radar site?

[1:09:02] We allowed for the connections,

[1:09:03] and it's up to the individual

[1:09:05] owners to make those

[1:09:06] connections.

[1:09:08] I can get those details to you.

[1:09:09] >> Commissioner o'Malley: we

[1:09:11] were looking at about $50,000 or

[1:09:13] more and you suggested that we

[1:09:15] look to the state for that money

[1:09:19] or the association of the state

[1:09:21] look for that money.

[1:09:25] There's no -- because it seemed

[1:09:27] like there needed improvement

[1:09:29] and I think they were going to

[1:09:30] tie into --

[1:09:33] >> I think the issue was the

[1:09:35] existing line which was a

[1:09:39] private line, had severe leakage

[1:09:42] and it needed to be replaced.

[1:09:44] And I think we changed the

[1:09:46] requirements because of

[1:09:47] additional infrastructure.

[1:09:49] Mr. Stomp might have a better

[1:09:55] reck legs on -- recollection.

[1:09:56] >> Commissioner o'Malley: I

[1:09:59] guess those people are being

[1:10:01] served as long as they pay.

[1:10:03] >> correct.

[1:10:04] I think we changed the need for

[1:10:07] the line?

[1:10:09] >> if you remember a couple

[1:10:12] years ago, we requested funding

[1:10:18] that was granted to the losthair

[1:10:19] horizons folks.

[1:10:21] They've made several

[1:10:22] connections.

[1:10:24] They pay their bills to lost

[1:10:25] horizons and they report their

[1:10:26] usage to them.

[1:10:30] We look at the pump station

[1:10:32] numbers to see.

[1:10:35] And their usage has increased

[1:10:37] slightly over the years.

[1:10:38] >> Commissioner o'Malley: so

[1:10:43] they have access through lost

[1:10:44] horizon.

[1:10:46] >> yes.

[1:10:47] Thank you.

[1:10:48] >> Commissioner o'Malley: I

[1:10:50] guess they're okay because they

[1:10:53] haven't complained about it.

[1:10:54] >> Councilor Jones: thank you,

[1:10:56] any other questions?

[1:10:57] I move approval.

[1:10:58] There's a motion and second.

[1:11:02] All those in favor say yes,

[1:11:02] opposed?

[1:11:03] Motion carries.

[1:11:05] Mr. Sanchez, the state

[1:11:06] legislative priorities.

[1:11:10] >> before you is the priority

[1:11:12] for state legislative out lays.

[1:11:16] The first is lopadillas water

[1:11:17] system.

[1:11:22] The board approved that.

[1:11:25] It should be 2.7

[1:11:26] $2.7 million.

[1:11:30] We received $750,000 from the

[1:11:34] new mexico finance thoertd

[1:11:35] authority.

[1:11:38] The wastewater improvements

[1:11:40] project planned and designed

[1:11:43] will need an additional $12,500

[1:11:45] for that.

[1:11:49] The bosque reuse is there as

[1:11:49] well.

[1:11:54] We're supporting the environment

[1:11:55] a

[1:11:57] adoption of petroleum tank

[1:11:58] storage.

[1:12:01] And the review of the gross

[1:12:03] receipts tax to the new mexico

[1:12:04] finance authority.

[1:12:07] Back in the day when it was

[1:12:09] created a portion of the

[1:12:12] receipts tax was ear marked to

[1:12:14] collateralize loans for the

[1:12:15] entire state.

[1:12:18] They have huge cash balances,

[1:12:20] and we provide half the funding.

[1:12:22] We generate over 10

[1:12:24] $10 million a

[1:12:26] year in governmental gross

[1:12:28] receipts tax and we receive very

[1:12:30] little benefit for projects we

[1:12:31] have a need for.

[1:12:35] We're not questioning the

[1:12:36] finance authority, we're

[1:12:38] suggesting the review of the

[1:12:40] intent of back then and where we

[1:12:43] are today.

[1:12:47] Additionally, to im

[1:12:48] oppose any

[1:12:51] legislation that is contrary to

[1:12:55] the water authority

[1:12:55] sustainability.

[1:12:58] >> I don't think we need to make

[1:12:59] the change formally, but the

[1:13:01] city and county have been

[1:13:03] working closely on acquiring new

[1:13:06] infrastructure and to address

[1:13:08] the land mobile radio system

[1:13:14] that we use as well as aps, I

[1:13:15] believe the water authority is

[1:13:17] on that system as well.

[1:13:21] And we urge that you have

[1:13:22] advocacy for funding.

[1:13:24] >> we can have that as an

[1:13:28] amendment if the board wishes

[1:13:28] to?

[1:13:30] >> Councilor Jones: that's a

[1:13:31] motion.

[1:13:32] Commissioner o'malley has a

[1:13:32] question.

[1:13:33] >> Commissioner o'Malley: I have

[1:13:35] a question about the radio

[1:13:35] system.

[1:13:41] So aps and cnm are part of this?

[1:13:41] >>

[1:13:46] >> yes, there are about 17

[1:13:48] agencies on that system.

[1:13:52] The fire, police, and it's a

[1:13:54] regional priority.

[1:13:56] >> Commissioner o'Malley: thank

[1:13:57] you.

[1:13:57] >> Councilor Jones: I have a

[1:14:00] motion and a second for that

[1:14:00] change.

[1:14:02] All those in favor say yes?

[1:14:04] Motion carries.

[1:14:05] Councilor davis, you had a

[1:14:05] question.

[1:14:06] >> Councilor Davis: I do.

[1:14:08] Mr. Sanchez, I'm just reminded

[1:14:11] that earlier this year as we're

[1:14:12] working through one of the

[1:14:16] updates around the kirtland jet

[1:14:17] fuel spill.

[1:14:20] We had some questions about

[1:14:23] their scientific over sight.

[1:14:26] They moved to the secretary's

[1:14:26] office.

[1:14:28] Are we comfortable now that

[1:14:32] process is in a good place

[1:14:32] again?

[1:14:34] Or does the water authority need

[1:14:38] to exercise some influence to

[1:14:42] protect that process?

[1:14:45] >> I think our plan would be to

[1:14:47] have that as an agenda item

[1:14:49] presentation in January to see

[1:14:50] where we are.

[1:14:53] I'm not sure we can ever be

[1:14:55] comfortable given what's at

[1:14:57] stake there.

[1:14:58] >> Councilor Davis: I don't

[1:14:59] think we need to do it as

[1:14:59] amendment.

[1:15:03] It covers under resiliency for

[1:15:04] our water supply.

[1:15:06] We want to keep an eye on that.

[1:15:09] And hope they can help us with

[1:15:11] that moving forward.

[1:15:12] >> Councilor Jones: thank you.

[1:15:14] Any other questions?

[1:15:17] >> I think you moved the

[1:15:19] amendment but not the bill.

[1:15:22] >> Councilor Jones: I move

[1:15:23] c-18-46 as amended.

[1:15:25] There's a motion and a second.

[1:15:28] All those in favor say yes.

[1:15:29] Motion carries.

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority on 2018-12-04 5:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript