silence then the pledge of
allegiance led by councilor
davis.
I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the united states
of america,
and to the republic
for which it stands,
one nation,
under God,
indivisible,
with liberty
and justice
for all.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you,
and thanks for being here this
evening.
Let's start with a motion to
approve the October 17, 2018
minutes.
All those in favor?
Those opposed.
Motion carries.
We have no proclamations and
awards.
Let's start with public comment.
How many do we have?
Each speaker will have three
minutes.
Please come forward when your
name is called.
>> I'm staff attorney with the
new mexico environmental law
health center.
I'm speaking on behalf of
community organizations and
individuals.
I request that I be given more
than three minutes to address
the board on three different
agenda items.
It's the first preliminary
matter.
>> Councilor Jones: we can give
you four minutes.
>> thank you.
On behalf of our clients, we
have submitted extensive
comments on the santolina
serviceability letter.
i would like to admit that into
the record at this time.
We have provided the board with
four major broad issues that we
have with the santolina serve
ice
serviceability letter.
The first concern is the board's
failure to satisfy it's
statutory mandidate for
regulations for water and
wastewater service to
developments outside out of
water authority service area and
the current legal existing
commitments.
We ask that the board satisfy
that statutory mandate and give
policy regulation to service
letters, and availability and
development agreement for
proposed developments such as
santolina and when it comes to
the water authority expanding
services beyond service area.
Without policy and regulations
and the executive decter and
keef operation officers behave
ing
an an ad hoc way.
The history that was omitted by
water authority staff in that
letter.
The approach to santolina.
The western albuquerque land
holdings actually submitted a
request for serviceability
statement back in 2014.
It was for three of the
developments.
Santolina, and del rio.
Documents obtained indicate the
chief operation officer said the
water could not approach these
three developments separately.
The impack -- impact of the
three are interrelated.
We ask to not handle this in a
piecemal approach and deal with
the impacts together.
the third concern we have
regarding the serviceability
letter is that it appears to be
base d on an unlawful return
flow credit.
We ask the board to direct
Mr. Stomp to explain how the
water and wastewater scheme does
not violate existing state
engineer regulations regarding
use and flow credits.
We are also concerned that the
serviceability letters proposed
water and wastewater scheme
relies on specklative bosqu
water reclamation plant.
Primarily when the water 2120
plan and the 2020 study
indicate provide nonpotable water
to existing users and future
committed growth for irrigation
to large turf areas, and nowhere
in 2
120 does it say the plant
can be used for santolina.
We ask the board to direct
Mr. Stomp to address that
concern.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
>> thank you, very much.
>> Councilor Jones: next
speaker.
>>
>> I'm with the south valley
regional association.
Last month I spoke regarding the
serviceability letter and I'm
submitting written comments
tonight regarding the
serviceability letter.
I'd like to provide a copy to
your staff to provide to you and
the other members of the board.
My statement reads, water
authority development agreement
for the santolina development
should still not be considered
by the albuquerque bernalillo
county water utility authority
until stan tech consulting
independent analysis of the
water supply utility charge and
proposed water resources charge
is complete and adopted by the
board.
The board is charged with
stewarding water supply and
infrastructure and in specific
water and wastewater expansion
ordinance a19c requires that the
board that any expansion of
water infrastructure be at no
expense to rate payers.
The water serviceability of
October 1, 2018 does not require
to the santolina developers to
pay the 137
$137 million of the
building of bosque recycling
plant.
In this case 2020 to serve the
plan "b" phase one.
If the water authority
development is provided using
only the current water service
charge of $1,669 for phase one,
4,900 households that totals 15
$15
million they contribute toward
the re clu
cluimation plant.
That will leave the remaining
cost for the recycling plant to
be paid by existing rate payers,
and other sources of funding
both federal and state.
Given that the water authority
policy is to ensure existing
rate payers does not pay for the
cost of expanding the system to
new users and given the burden
of existing rate paysers we
courage the watt authority to
not consider the development for
santolina.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you,
sir.
>> thank you, Madam Chair.
>> good afternoon.
As usual, I don't have enough
time to cover everything in
detail.
I'm going to skip to the punch
line.
I've said how many times how I
think having markers to choose
whether or not there's success
in reaching goals is needed.
Here's an example.
Ground court pumping has to stop
even more, double from what
we've been stopping in order to
reach the goal set out in
chapter five.
Santolina, the idea of allowing
that to come in and start
pumping more, which is what the
letter of serviceability talks
about will increase the pumping
and that will upset the whole
plan.
So, before the serviceability
letter is finalized, I think
there needs to be ground water
plan.
There needs to be -- sorry, the
determination has to be of what
the water supply charge should
include.
And that is under review by a
consultant of yours.
I suggest that until that is
done that -- how do you know
whether or not there's going to
be no next ex-spence.
I recommend the utility adopt
full cost recovery rather than
occural accounting so that the
cost of supplying water, the
environmental cost, resource
cost, and so son so on are met
to adopt policy of water
neutrality.
It would be one May to ensure we
didn't increase pumping and
depletions which are hardly
being covered without extra
water.
Remove the boskque project.
I will submit my comments which
are in more depth.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
>> I live in the southival
valley,
I'm the vice-President Of the
neighborhood association.
I also agree that the
serviceability letter has to be
redone.
It doesn't answer a lot of the
issues.
We're concerned with the no net
expense
expense.
We don't know how they're do it
without expense to the
taxpayers.
We're worried where the water is
going to come from for
santolina.
I'm going to read a couple
points from his letter that I
will submit to this board.
Concerning the water
serviceability letter, the plant
construction schedule has been
accelerated.
It was to be built after 2050,
now it's for the water and sewer
for santolina.
The capital cost were included
in 659
$659 million and the total
estimated cost for phase.
That in -- October 2018 called
water and sewer base of cost.
The bosque do not appear in the
serviceability of the master
plan set fourth in table two.
What is the basis for the 49
$49
million share of the cost which
exceed 100
$100 million?
Why are bosque's costs
eliminated from requirements?
The water authority is not being
transparent about it being used
for santolina and the funding
request for state and federal
funding.
This will be on agenda c-1845
and 46.
The 2018 technical memorandum
concludes that the new water
capacity is required, but no
ground water facilities can
collect lines to convey to the
new storage tanks.
It includes a water cost
subtotal.
Water utility authority
officialvise told developers
that ground water is in the
property.
No additional water capacity is
available for the area.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
>> May I submit this for public
record?
Thank you, very much.
>> Councilor Jones: that's all
of the speakers for this
evening, if he comes in later
we'll give him an opportunity to
speak also.
Let's move to the next agenda
meeting, the next scheduled
meeting is January 30, 2019 at
5:00 P.M. In the vincent griego
cham
chambers.
We're going to move the next
item, that's ob-18-15 sewer
water and development
infrastructure presentation by
Mr. Stomp.
.
>> good evening, Madam Chair,
members of the board.
Thank you for the opportunity
for being here tonight.
I'm going to present to you the
water and sewer infrastructure
requirements I'm going to
outline in the serviceability
statement or letter depending on
how you call it.
We did this at the last board
meeting, and we're asked to come
do it again.
I apologize for you that heard
it once.
You're going to hear it again.
Hopefully I'll do a better job
since this is the second time
around.
So the time line as you know,
level a and b1 were approved by
the county.
The land use plans are reprec
you
without a land use plan we would
never entertain a water sewer
serviceability request.
That explains the 2014 request
that went before us the reason
why we did not address that is
because we did not have the land
use plan.
The serviceability plan was
made,individually.
We had to do them collectively.
That's one response to Ms. Parks
request.
We did issue -- there was a
developer serviceability issue
January 11, 2018.
There was information provided
and this board adopted 2120
which had goals to reduce from
135 gallons to 110 per capita
per day.
The developer remitted
submitted those to be consistent
with the plan.
The serviceability was issued on
October 1, and the next step is
to issue an availability
statement and come up with a
development agreement that would
be conditions of service that
have to approved by this board.
No service commitments have been
made until it's approved by this
board.
Just to go through where we're
at, the santolina development as
you know is a very large
development on the west side of
about 14,000 acres.
Phase one was approved for about
4300 acres.
Population projections is about
9 5
95,000 people.
It's about the size of rio
rancho in terms of magnitude of
people served.
Level "b" was 22,000.
The water supply requirements
based on the supplemental
information and based on 110 per
capita per day are provided
there.
2700 feet for the level b1, and
11,000 for the full build out.
In terms of population
projections, these predicted in
the 2120, we graphed out the low
growth strategy or scenario.
We have three different
scenario 2120.
Low, medium, and high growth.
When you project the existing
population and cup pair that to
the future growth projections we
allocated a certain percentage
of growt
side consistent with today.
We do our best to figure out
what the basis of how this
population would be broken up
between existing east and west
and future development east and
west.
To put in perspective in terms
of the long term future strategy
for the water authority and
santolina compared to that,
under the low growth santolina
represents about 15% of the
total population over the next
hundred years.
A very significant portion of
that under the no growth
scenario.
If you look at the medium growth
scenario, santolina represents
about 11% of the total
population by the year 2120.
Even under the medium growth it
still represents large
percentage of the growth of
service area in the future.
So this is a graph of the future
water demands, they're broken
down to reuse, and potable
demands and showing wastewater
flows frojected in the future as
you go along from 2018 to 2065.
We're showing the level b1 and
a, these are projected
population and demand
projections for potable and
nonpotable.
Level b1 is 2700 acre feet.
And11,700 including
potable and nonpotable.
In terms of the demand over
time, we have the three
different growth scenarios, low,
medium and high growth.
These are the demand projections
for those different scenarios.
Under the no growth snai
cenario our
future demand is going up to 21
210,000 acre feet for the high
growth.
In terms of santolina projected
overall demands, we projected in
the 2065 what percent of the
water demand would be served by
santolina which is 9%.
We projected the difference
between west side and the future
demand totally and that portion
would be attributed to
santolina.
You have a box on the right side
with the potable and non-potable
as it relates to the future
demand in the 2120 plan.
So as we talked about last
month, we talked about what was
the first step in determining
what the requirements for
santolina would be, the first
step was to determine what the
legal commitments are.
Who are we serve
ing in the
service area?
Who is not being served in the
service area?
We have a commitment that we're
going to provide water and
service to everyone in the area.
We need to figure out the
development agreements approved
by the board and the impact in
the existing service area.
And the contracts we have with
existing entities like intel and
the village of kral
corales.
We have existing contracts to
provide wastewater treatment and
a million for corrales.
When you look at that and
compare it to the system, we
have to analyze what the
capacity issues are in terms of
the commitment.
We looked at the water, sewer,
and reuse system.
There's no reuse on the west
side.
There's nothing to talk about
other than the future potential
for reuse which is the bosque
plant and reuse proposed for
santolina.
On the water side we have ground
water wells on the west side.
And the transfer of surface
water from east to west.
We have two lift station, which
is called lift station 20 which
takes the flow from the west
side across the river to the
south side plant.
We evaluated the capacity to see
if there was deficiencies and
how we would be making up those
deficiencies for those that
would be exasperated by them.
We have the existing demand
shown there, we have ground
court as one measure of ply on
the west side.
We have demand on the west side,
and the existing ground water
wells which are the dark blue,
and we also have the light blue
or hatch blue on of that they
shows the ground water capacity
committed.
If you look that ground water
capacity line, the legal
agreements is above that.
We're already obligated with the
ground water supply on the west
side.
Any additional ground water
pumping would require new
infrastructure or infrastructure
to be used on the east side to
move over to the west side.
On the wastewater side we looked
at the interceptor system and
the capacity of the outing side
water reck lumakes plant.
Inplant is 76 million gallons a
day.
We will not expand that plan.
Any future wastewater is going
to be constructed flew satellite
systems.
There are two other systems that
have been approved by this board
that are part of water 2120.
The idea is that as we grow, the
sewer plant at the south side of
albuquerque would stay the same
and we would build satellite
facilities to serve that.
We would reuse that water as a
drinking water supply.
That's part of the water 2120
plan.
We have existing deficiencies
for capacity of ground water on
the west side, and we have
interceptor and other capacity
constraints on the west side
also.
In terms of the packet, there's
two additional is slides,
infrastructure requirements as
we talked about we're phasing
the infrastructure in over time.
The first phase to construct the
plant, the bosque plant has 4
million gallons a day, so by
constructing it we're freeing up
4 million gallons a day.
In addition, we're freeing up
interceptor capacity.
The bosque plant transitions
existing use to free up
interceptor capacity that allows
santolina to construct and add
new population in the first
phase.
In the second phase you're
required to build a new
wastewater treatment plant that
is able to serve their reuse
needs and the last phase of the
development they will build a
new wastewater plant or expand
the plant and combine that with
service water and use it as
drinking water.
Reuse becomes a big component.
Using the existing supplies that
we have.
The is wastewater that is
generated on-site at santolina
will be future use for
nonpotable but also drinking
water supply.
With that, Madam Chair I'm glad
to answer any questions.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you,
Mr. Stomp.
Any questions?
Councilor davis.
>> Councilor Davis: thank you,
Madam Chair, thank you,
Mr. Attempt.
I wanted to follow up on a
couple questions we had
previously and address the
questions we heard tonight.
I tried to boil down your big
picture stuff to something I can
understand.
Under our water 2120 plan, we've
accommodated for the area's
planned growth.
In other words, with all of the
infrastructure that this board
and this authority has planned,
we can accommodate our planned
growth with all of the pieces.
But the question I see about
santolina is, are we going to
expand our service area so much
that 9% of the water and the
capacity we need for future
growth is allocated to a new
area, coo -- to me that sounds
like we'll have a 9% deficiency,
or that would limit growth in
the current area.
Is that the trade-off here?
>> so, in the water 2120 plan we
did not make the distinction of
where growth happen.
Our service area as defined by
state engineers is all of
bernalillo county.
Santolina is not outside of
service area.
The land use decisions are not
made by us, and they dictate
where that growth might occur.
Our water supply would be
available to serve that growth
in santolina and because we
allocate that supply to them,
that would stop future
allocation of that same amount
of supply.
Just like if we approved in the
development agreement tonight,
that would be service area
committed to somebody else.
However it's not going to take
water supplies from our existing
service area.
We have enough supplies to serve
within our existing boundary,
that is the purple area on that
graph.
To the extent that we make a
commitment today we're
committing those resources into
the future which could go to
land use or expansion in other
areas.
>> Councilor Davis: we talked
about remaineders of available
capacity
capacity, east and west side
being different.
Santolina would take 9% of our
future capacity, right?
What percent of the west side
remainder would santolina take
away?
What would it limit the
remainder to be?
>> as I tried to state, and
maybe I wasn't very good at it,
we have a deficiency.
We've legally committed our
existing capacity both on the
interceptor and ground water
side.
To our development agreement,s
contracts, and our service area
on the west side.
We're at the service limit.
It's going to need additional
infrastructure or exchanges with
the bosque plant.
>> thank you to Madam Chair and
the staff for reschedule
ing the
November meeting and redoing
this conversation.
Can you explain where we are
procedurally in terms of what
this board is doing tonight and
what will be asked to do in the
future?
>> we are in the first step of
the process.
We've issued serviceability of
the letter, which outlines the
infrastructure requirements.
We have to have an availability
statement which is a commitment
of service in some respects with
the xepgds exception of the
fact that it has to come before
this board.
There's been no commitment of
service, we've outlined the
infrastructure agreements that
we need and that are proep
posed
there.
>> thank you.
One of the speakers expressed
concerns about return credits,
can you speak to that issue?
>> I don't believe that we have
proposed unlawful return flow
credit.
I'm not sure what that means.
In the bosque serviceability
letter we proposed a new
diversion on the river, that
requires certain permitting to
be done.
If we request a return flow from
the bosque we have to go through
the process with the state
engineer.
We've said that in the
serviceability statement.
They're not permits that would
never be required, but they
could be required.
>> we also heard a lot of
question about ground water.
Would you mind going back to the
chart with the red graph and
blue graph.
I don't know what number it was.
>> this is it here?
>> yes.
Could you talk about what that
difference between that
available ground line and in
insolid bar means in the chart?
>> sure, I would be glad to do
it.
So, when we looked at the total
demand on the west side and the
existing ground water capacity
we have, what we have available
ground water is water that is
available for today.
we have more wells on the west
side than we're using because
they have high arsenic arsenic
concentrations.
If you project what we're doing
today and our legal commitments
in the future, even if we added
the existing ground water that's
unavailable, and it's
unavailable because of arsenic
treatment, we don't have enough
to meet the obligations on the
west side.
We're in a deficit scenario.
>> Mr. Stomp, can I ask the
basic question of whether
santolina increases pumping of
ground water?
>> the answer is no.
The way this plan was formulated
was to be consistent with the
policy, which is 20
120.
It limits ground water use by
transitioning to other supplies.
That's what water 2120 is all
about.
No it will not.
I will be glad to do a
presentation to show how we
think these resources will be
allocated and how it meets water
2120.
>> Councilor Jones: commissioner
o'malley.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: thank
you, Madam Chair.
There's been discussion back and
forth about the source of water.
You mentioned that it looks like
like -- the well water for
santolina is not ground water.
It's since we're changing to
mostly ebriver -- river water.
Because there's changing in
needs of the community, but
further down where the water
ends up.
I'm hearing it's not the same
water or not the same source of
water, but it's the same source
of water.
You're changing it by cleaning
it up, but it's really same
source of water.
I think that's important for
people to understand.
We've got two sources of water.
Water coming down the river
which is a portion of it is
private water which we secured
way back when.
Which it effects the
agricultural use.
We've been pretty generous in
holding water and making
available for agricultural use,
and I hope we can continue that.
Of course, we don't know what
the situation will be in in the
future in terms of runoff and
water.
Am I misunderstanding this?
We're asking this large
development to say, yes you're
going to put in a system to
reuse, you're going to clean it.
You're going to put in
wastewater statement, you're
going to have pay it, and we're
really talking about two sources
of water.
Am I wrong in that?
>> I don't think you're wrong.
For example, if you're pumping
ground water and you a
wastewater return flow, is that
wastewater or ground water?
It's the use of that same ground
water.
If you're diverting service
water, you're not consuming it,
it's available through
wastewater returns.
It's still surface water.
Nonetheless it's the same source
of supply.
People have different ways of
saying it.
But the answer is yes, we have
surface water and that surface
water can be native water and we
have ground water and we have
return flows or wastewater
associated with those supplies.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: it's
the same source of water?
>> correct.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
Commissioner quezada.
>> Commissioner Quezada: we know
that the growth of the city has
always been in the last 20 years
on the west side.
All the way a far up a ventana
ranch, the city of albuquerque
has allowed developers to build
homes all across the southwest
mesa.
My question is why haven't we
had those developers look at how
they use water and why weren't
they part of this whole plan?
Why didn't they pay for water
treatment on the west side?
We look at statistics on thou
city is growing and maybe not
growing, but my concern is is
that the slow growth that is
taking place is moving west.
Why did the city of albuquerque
not require developers before
we're talking about this big
development on the west side on
how we use water and the way
water is being used and reused
and all of these sorts of
things?
Can you answer that question?
>> I don't know that I can
answer why the city of
albuquerque did that.
As the policies for the city
prior to the water authority,
and now water 2120, we serve
those developments that were
approved land use whether it was
city or county, we served those
consistent with the policies.
Our policies have changed as
we've learned and managed and
continued to grow and our
understanding of the various
supplies our policies have
changed.
In the past we're 100% ground
water.
When we understood that was not
sustainable, we changed to
surface, ground and reuse.
Now we're going to have to go
further with reuse and conserve
more and more.
All of these things play into
how growth has occurred in
albuquerque over time.
The growth that did occur did
pay their fair share, just like
everybody else paid their fair
share.
The charge is going to be based
on infrastructure requirements
as part of water 2120, before it
was based on purchasing water
roirth
rights, the basis for that
calculation has changed and the
infrastructure requirements has
changed.
We're not changing the way we do
business, what's changed is the
understanding and how we serve
those communities.
They've paid their fair share,
what our understanding of the
fair share was at the time.
Our policies change.
Water 2120 is not the end of the
story.
We're going to come back and
revisit this and evaluate
climate change, and we've in
incorporated for climate change
with the best available
information.
It could get worse.
We have that process in place.
Those policies are going to
change.
Our conservation plan is 110
gallons per day.
We're going to continue to grow
and serve our customers, and our
policies are going to continue
to evolve as that does too.
I hope that answer your question
commissioner quezada.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
Councilor pe}a.
>> Councilor Pe}a: thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stomp, answer basic
questions for me.
We're talking about the water of
santolina and any other proposed
development whether small big.
When we look at the population
growth it ends at a million or
something like that.
Does the amount of water we use
change?
>> Madam Chair, councilor pe}a,
yes, it does change because we
have a conivation goal.
That's probably not the end of
the story, we're going to reduce
our use.
We've reduced our use 1gpc even
though it's a drought.
We're going to continue to
change that.
We're going to continue to
evolve it in that way.
Our demand has reduesed
ed
ed --
reduced.
I would consider that those
things are -- are we always
going to continue to use less
water?
I would say no that's going to
be the case.
Demand is going to increase some
day, of course.
>> Councilor Pe}a: I should be
more clear.
My question is, whether we build
within the city now or whether
we add a development, is the
amount of water necessary
outside of all of the reuse
measure we're going to take,
will I I think I under the question.
In 20
120 we assumed that
population growth, it was inside
or outside the boundaries, the
water use associated with that
population growth will be the
same no matter where it occurs.
>> Councilor Pe}a: so, it
doesn't change?
So whether it's all of a sudden
we had the availability to buy
and purchase property somewhere
else outside, it would remain
the same.
So my other question is that in
terms of the infrastructure, so
there's probably some concerns
in terms of infrastructure being
built as we grow the city, would
those needs be comparable if we
just grew within the city
because of old infrastructure?
>> that's a very difficult
question to ask, it really
depends on the demand.
If the demand in the
redevelopment areas, like knob
hill.
The demand stays the same.
If we build high rise, we're
going to need more demand and
fire protection needs.
It will require additional
infrastructure.
We have that going on right now.
There's development along
central avenue where it's not
capable for water demands.
Developers are responsible for
building water infrastructure to
do that.
It's depending on what the
development looks like.
Whether it's inside or out
infrastructure can still be
required.
>> Councilor Pe}a: one last
question.
So if we don't do this
development, you know, really
we're growing as a city and as
commissioner quezada stated,
people are moving to the west
side.
One of my fears is that I'm born
and raised in the south valley
and all the agriculture and farm
lands and how unique it is to
the city of albuquerque, my
concern is that would densify
that area especially with what
you have -- you have the abc
comprehensive plan that is in
hopes that the county is going
to adopt that.
I see that is densifying the
south valley and it would have
the same growth and need.
I'm afraid that it would egroed
egroed -- erode the south
valley.
>> it development did occurred
in this area or some place else,
it's going to effect what it
looks like.
Where would people locate if
santolina wasn't developed, I
don't think I can answer that
question.
>> Councilor Jones: commissioner
o'malley.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: I
think I just wanted to lay out
that when we're doing
redevelopment projects we have
existing infrastructure.
I'm glad we're putting resources
into existing infrastructure and
we have infrastructure.
Frankly that money didn't get
put in there when taxes were
being paid for years and years,
so we have the infrastructure
that needed rehab and I'm glad
we're do it.
We're having to rehab that no
matter where the infrastructure
is, it's not totally new
infrastructure.
I think to be -- we've never
seen anything like this in terms
of how large the development is.
We're talking about thousands of
acres.
We've never seen request for a
zone change that large.
We've never dealt with the
development agreement of this
nature.
It's all new to us.
I believe the water authority is
really -- I think we're doing
great work making sure existing
rate payers, and the
agricultural need, because it's
important to balance those.
I just wanted to make that
statement because I think
sometimes we get a lot of
criticism.
I just want to make that in
terms of bond capacity.
We're putting a lot of resources
into capital.
Not only in the existing areas,
but places all over the west
side that have not been
rehabbed.
I think it's important that the
resources go there as well.
It looks like the plan, when
you're looking at this picture,
you're looking at reuse.
We're going to have to clean up
a lot of water.
This isn't the standard plan.
This isn't we're just going to
take water, we're looking at a
whole new approach delivery.
I think it's very thoughtful and
we'll see as we move forward.
I just think you have thought a
lot of things through, I
appreciate that.
>> Councilor Jones: commissioner
quezada.
>> Commissioner Quezada: we did
put new infrastructure in los
padillas, and we're able to do
that with the help of water
authority and bernalillo county.
There's still parts of the unin
unincorporated area that is
needed.
I wanted to address the comment
from councilor pe}a, I'm the
commissioner and I overlook the
south valley.
I spent the first year and a
half to protect anderson farms
and I lost a big chunk of it.
Every week, there's people who
own land in the south valley
that come from families that
were farmers and growing and
selling it.
They're moving to the northeast
heights where they have
amenities and different types of
ways of living.
We have developers looking at
that land all the time.
It goes to the cpc, it doesn't
come to me.
If the cpc approves on that
agricultural land, it's lost
forever.
As the city grows, I'd like to
not see it grow on the
agricultural land.
I'd like to keep that for the
future of albuquerque and
bernalillo county because that's
makes us unique than any other
county.
I wanted to address that because
you don't see that much in the
city.
I see it in a weeky basis in the
county.
People are going after that
agricultural land, they want to
build apartments.
And that's not what the
southivaly is for.
We have to figure out the
compromise, and how do we serve
the needs of how this city
grows.
I think we'll differ on how it's
growing, or the way it's
growing.
I don't rely on statistics, I
rely on what I see out my door
and window when I'm driving in
albuquerque every day.
Those are my concerns and
fights.
I have to agree with
commissioner o'malley that we
have to really look at how water
is used because that's precious
to everybody.
It should be just as precious to
any developers moving west.
Without water, why build
anything and try to provide that
for the city.
I wanted to address that.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
>> thank you, and I think we
have many months to discuss
this.
We didn't talk about dollars and
cents here.
And I know some of the public
comment were about full cost
recovery, or premature given the
water supply charge analysis.
Could you speak to those points?
>> I think the water supply
charge will be coming, and the
discussion will be soon I
believe.
Whatever that change is going to
be it's before you.
In terms of the no net expense
policy.
We're going to development in
that document that is going to
go with this document so you can
see in writing and those around
us that are concerned with the
development will have an
opportunity to look at the
analysis that was done.
We're committing to doing that.
When we get further in the
process we'll be doing that for
you to show you how we meet the
no net expense criteria.
>> Councilor Jones: councilor
davis.
>> Councilor Davis: I just want
to follow that quickly.
No net expense, we throw that
around, but I want to make sure
the folks know how that's
applied here.
Are we applying the same rules
to the santolina review that was
applied to other developments?
And I think the answer to that
is yes.
We apply a rule that says any
new development whether it's ten
houses or how many this is, must
pay their own way.
This board and this authority
has ordinances that ensure our
water rates don't double to
subsdize someone else's private
development.
This is is a big number,
whatever that number is, rough
lae
ly
roughly -- once we get into the
numbers for santolina.
Instead of the 99,000 people to
be served by santolina, if they
were to break that into a
thousand developments for 99
people, we would go through that
same evaluation process of
existing infrastructure and
existing capacity for each of
those thousand request to
accommodate the same thing?
Each of those developers would
have to pay whatever the
requirement would be to add
their people to the service.
>> that's absolutely true.
Whether it's big development or
small development, the no net
development clause applies.
This happens to be a very large
development.
>> Councilor Davis: just as a
term of reference.
When mesa del sol came to this
board the no net expense applied
to this as well.
They had to pay all of the
infrastructure to meet the
availability so that the payers
didn't have to pay, is that
correct?
>> yes.
>> Councilor Jones: any more
questions?
>> Commissioner Quezada: would
they have to build a water
treatment plant eventually we're
-- we've got 10,000 homes with
25 different developers, and
there's no water treatment
plant.
There's no reuse plan they have
to pay for.
We have to pay 100% of that
don't we?
>> mesa del sol is on the hook
for a wastewater treatment
plant.
That value is 80
$80 million back
in 2002.
Don't quote me on that.
I apologize if that date is off.
They're on the hook for a water
system and a second phase water
system to serve that
development.
They're allowed a capacity up
front because we had more at
the time.
We call that the tijeras reuse
plant.
They are on the hook for the
same type of infrastructure.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
i would like to make a comment.
I'm going to let Mr. Waum speak
first.
>> good evening.
Thank you.
I think that actually subsidy is
the key issue.
To what extent will rate payers
subsidize the developers trying
to develop this property.
I heard one interesting thing
from Mr. Stomp that I support,
you were told that an
availability statement will be
required.
That's reversal of a position
that I heard Mr. Stomp
articulate only a very short
time ago.
I was heard that the next step
would be the development
agreement and the availability
statement would be skipped.
I'm concerned that the estimates
in the serviceability letter are
low.
The estimates only appear in the
albuquerque journal story.
The serviceability letter does
not contain the details of the
600
$600 million figure that's been
quoted.
That 600
$600 million figure omits
components that are essential to
provide service to santolina.
It provides nothing for the
water reclamation plant.
It does not include facilities
required for indirect potable
reuse.
My understanding is that is the
plan for santolina, and
background documents indicate
that it must be the plan because
assume -- there are no reclaim
in the serviceability letter.
Service also requires on
facilities will be incredibly
expensive to build and maintain.
So the question for no net
expense is will cost be
recovered associated with these
high marginal cost of operating
these plants that would not be
required if not for santolina.
The serviceability letter says
that the developer should
reconsider it's feeze
asibility
feasibility.
The feasibility of this
development.
Shunt -- shouldn't the
feasibility statements be based
on all of the costs instead of
the partial costs listed to
date.
I would point out that the water
in the blue graph do not match
the figures in the text.
They say the total capacity is
54.
I'm concerned that the two I'ms
on our agenda would request
federal and state funding for
the bosque plant, yet the
serviceability letter does not
indicate any responsibility for
santolina to pay for the bosque
plant.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
Mr. Stomp do you want to respond
to any of that?
Thank you.
Just a short statement.
I know this is overwhelming when
we look at the development of
this size.
When we look at it, it's the
development.
The santolina development.
This is like any other piece of
the city that's developed.
I'm sure there's people here
that were living in homes
because they were built on
private landownership.
they developed a piece at a
time.
Even though it May have been 50
acres or a thousand acres.
I think we need to do is look at
this big picture.
This is a big undertaking for
any place.
What I see is the advantage is
it gives the water authority,
and the governing agencies an
opportunity to set a standard
for the entire project.
I think that's being done by the
water authority and I'm sure the
county is looking at it also.
This is one of those things that
it's hard to see change.
We love our city, but we also
need to know there is change.
I think the water authority is
taking a really good stance on
this knowing that this agreement
goes with the land even if the
current owners were to sell 200
acres or 1 acre at the time.
All of the costs go to each
owner as they develop or build
on the property.
We have to take a bite at a time
and see if it works.
Thank you for being so
interested.
Thank you for continuing to give
us your opinions.
We we've appreciated everything
you've contributed this evening.
Let's move to next item of first
reading of legislation.
That is being handled.
Good evening.
>> good evening, Madam Chair.
Introduction for rez
solution to
add an appropriation for fy19 to
carry over expenditures from
1819, and we did miscellaneous
adjustments to sure up.
The state of new mexico and
local division in regard to
proving the fy19 budget.
We're doing this clean up and
moving the appropriations to
fy19.
I stand for any questions.
>> Councilor Jones: any
questions?
Thank you, sir.
Next on the agenda is the
consent agenda.
There's a motion and a second to
approve the consent agenda.
All those in favor?
Those opposed?
Motion carries.
This is r-18-27 authorizing the
removal of certain uncollectible
accounts from the water utility
authority accounts receive
able
accounts.
>> this is what we do every
quarter, we take and look at
those sitting on the books that
are four years or older.
That's allowing us to write-off
approximately $74,000 off our
books.
They're primarily residential
properties that have not paid
their bill in six or seven years
and have not paid their property
bills over the five or six
years.
We've deemed them uncollectible
and ask that we move those off
the books.
>> Councilor Jones: there's a
motion and a second for
approval.
All those in favor?
Those opposed?
Motion carries.
We're going to c-18-45 which is
2019 legislative priorities.
Mr. Sanchez.
>> Madam Chair, I believe you
skipped one item.
>> Councilor Jones: sorry.
I skipped
skipped.
>> this is our first quarter
financial report, I'll make sure
I move the slides this time.
The first slide is your revenue
compared to the prior fiscal
years.
We've generated about a million
dollars less in revenue than we
did last time.
Consumption was down too
highjuly.
We're still projected to be at
budget or above budget by the
end of the fiscal year.
This graphic, it shows the
expenditures for the year.
As you can see, the transfers
are increasing, that's due to
the additional 3
$3 million we
transferred to capital.
All the other expenditures have
been in line and actually what
many of them decreasing.
The next slide is just a quick
depiction of our spending each
month compare to rolling average
for the year.
August was a high month.
We spent a lot of expenditures
on power and chemtuals in that
month as we run the water
treatment plant.
As we start ramping back down
expenditures come more back down
in line.
Days cash on hand.
At the end of fiscal year 2018
we have almost 445 days of cash
on hand.
At the end of the first quarter
we had about 325 days cash on
hand.
That's primarily because we
spent 44
$44 million on July 1 for
debt service payment.
That will go back up.
The next slide is our capital
expenditures.
We caught up what we've
underspent in fy16 and 17.
It was a heavy first quarter
last year, but we're on pace to
spend on what we spend on fy19.
Our ratio is 1.33 for debt, and
1.20 for all debt.
As you can see, we almost hit
three for fiscal year 18.
We're at about 2.25 for fy19 so
far, and this helps to get our
triple a rating with the rating
agencies.
Next slide is water use
production.
The same slide after that is
with consumption.
Consumption production is down
this year.
It's at fy16 levels.
It's below fy18 and fy17 levels.
Basically, we had a really heavy
July consumption, and people's
water usage really dropped off
after that.
We're having a good year as far
as reducing the water usage
during the first quarter.
And the last slide is depiction
of how much we produce compare
to consumption.
July was a heavy rain month.
As we start getting a lot of
rain, our consumption levels
drop off.
>> Councilor Jones: are there
any questions?
I move approval.
There's a motion and a second
for fy-c-18-44.
Motion carries.
Now Mr. Sanchez.
>> before you is our federal
priorities, they're the same as
last year and previous years.
Under the water recycling
program there's two reuse
projects.
the tijeras and the bosque reuse
project which is along
aung
ong coors and
mon
montonao.
These have nothing to do with
santolina.
If santolina were to come about,
they would be required to
construct bosque to free up
drinking water supply as
Mr. Stomp mentioned.
The other projects would be to
continue the support for
kirtland air force base clean
up.
And the sandia national labs
land fill and continue land
water storage.
And the endangered species act.
I stand for any questions.
>> Councilor Jones: commissioner
o'malley.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: thank
you, Madam Chair.
At one time, this was a couple
years back, we had the
discussion about the west side
along central, there was group
shot come to us -- that come to
us asking for service.
We actually amended the west
side's plan along the central
area which didn't have a plan.
We put a plan in place in the
county.
Where is that now?
>> my recollection is, you're
talking about the radar site?
We allowed for the connections,
and it's up to the individual
owners to make those
connections.
I can get those details to you.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: we
were looking at about $50,000 or
more and you suggested that we
look to the state for that money
or the association of the state
look for that money.
There's no -- because it seemed
like there needed improvement
and I think they were going to
tie into --
>> I think the issue was the
existing line which was a
private line, had severe leakage
and it needed to be replaced.
And I think we changed the
requirements because of
additional infrastructure.
Mr. Stomp might have a better
reck legs on -- recollection.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: I
guess those people are being
served as long as they pay.
>> correct.
I think we changed the need for
the line?
>> if you remember a couple
years ago, we requested funding
that was granted to the losthair
horizons folks.
They've made several
connections.
They pay their bills to lost
horizons and they report their
usage to them.
We look at the pump station
numbers to see.
And their usage has increased
slightly over the years.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: so
they have access through lost
horizon.
>> yes.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: I
guess they're okay because they
haven't complained about it.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you,
any other questions?
I move approval.
There's a motion and second.
All those in favor say yes,
opposed?
Motion carries.
Mr. Sanchez, the state
legislative priorities.
>> before you is the priority
for state legislative out lays.
The first is lopadillas water
system.
The board approved that.
It should be 2.7
$2.7 million.
We received $750,000 from the
new mexico finance thoertd
authority.
The wastewater improvements
project planned and designed
will need an additional $12,500
for that.
The bosque reuse is there as
well.
We're supporting the environment
a
adoption of petroleum tank
storage.
And the review of the gross
receipts tax to the new mexico
finance authority.
Back in the day when it was
created a portion of the
receipts tax was ear marked to
collateralize loans for the
entire state.
They have huge cash balances,
and we provide half the funding.
We generate over 10
$10 million a
year in governmental gross
receipts tax and we receive very
little benefit for projects we
have a need for.
We're not questioning the
finance authority, we're
suggesting the review of the
intent of back then and where we
are today.
Additionally, to im
oppose any
legislation that is contrary to
the water authority
sustainability.
>> I don't think we need to make
the change formally, but the
city and county have been
working closely on acquiring new
infrastructure and to address
the land mobile radio system
that we use as well as aps, I
believe the water authority is
on that system as well.
And we urge that you have
advocacy for funding.
>> we can have that as an
amendment if the board wishes
to?
>> Councilor Jones: that's a
motion.
Commissioner o'malley has a
question.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: I have
a question about the radio
system.
So aps and cnm are part of this?
>>
>> yes, there are about 17
agencies on that system.
The fire, police, and it's a
regional priority.
>> Commissioner o'Malley: thank
you.
>> Councilor Jones: I have a
motion and a second for that
change.
All those in favor say yes?
Motion carries.
Councilor davis, you had a
question.
>> Councilor Davis: I do.
Mr. Sanchez, I'm just reminded
that earlier this year as we're
working through one of the
updates around the kirtland jet
fuel spill.
We had some questions about
their scientific over sight.
They moved to the secretary's
office.
Are we comfortable now that
process is in a good place
again?
Or does the water authority need
to exercise some influence to
protect that process?
>> I think our plan would be to
have that as an agenda item
presentation in January to see
where we are.
I'm not sure we can ever be
comfortable given what's at
stake there.
>> Councilor Davis: I don't
think we need to do it as
amendment.
It covers under resiliency for
our water supply.
We want to keep an eye on that.
And hope they can help us with
that moving forward.
>> Councilor Jones: thank you.
Any other questions?
>> I think you moved the
amendment but not the bill.
>> Councilor Jones: I move
c-18-46 as amended.
There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor say yes.
Motion carries.