[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
[40:50] 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.