OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Los Alamos County, New Mexico/County Council & Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Los Alamos Board of Public Utilities Regular Meeting - October 21, 2026

County Council & Boards — Wednesday, October 21, 2026
BodyLos Alamos County, New Mexico
SessionCounty Council & Boards
DateWednesday, October 21, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:28:45

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

14:29

They give us a file, and then we upload that file into Tyler

Unassigned speaker

14:33

for

Speaker 1

14:33

the meter reads.

14:38

We do but they use this software to get the reads, and then create the file that we upload into Tyler.

Speaker 2

14:48

Which is not unusual.

Speaker 1

15:00

Okay.

15:03

And so it sounds

Unassigned speaker

15:04

like

Speaker 1

15:04

generally our meter reader is the one that's going out to all these addresses every every day they read certain meters.

15:11

They're not reading 472 meters in a day.

15:13

But every day they go out and read a certain cycle of the meters and they use that app to put those actual reads from the meter into the system into their smartphone.

Speaker 2

15:25

So what we're paying for is the app.

15:27

Is that the case?

Speaker 1

15:28

That's it.

15:29

We're paying for the app.

15:30

We're also paying for, I think, two seats, which where we can log in.

15:34

Our meter readers have a login customer service has a login.

15:38

And they can look at they can take photos of the meter.

15:42

So if it looks the meter read looks funny, we can actually see the meter.

15:46

We can log in and go to that meter, and we have the an actual picture of the meter.

15:53

It's also some other way that if customer calls, we have that information available as well.

15:59

And we have a photo of the meter.

Speaker 2

16:01

Okay.

16:02

So what are we paying presently per year for this contract?

Speaker 1

16:07

Um it's about $16,000 right now.

16:16

It's but was budgeted for this fiscal year.

16:22

Don't know the exact dollar.

16:23

I'm sorry.

16:24

Let me see that.

Speaker 2

16:25

We started it.

16:26

This contract started at about 9,000, wasn't

Unassigned speaker

16:29

it?

Unassigned speaker

16:30

Well,

Speaker 2

16:30

we got amended right away, which confused things somewhat.

Speaker 1

16:33

Well, I think the the second amendment then was we were paying for four seats of and that was four people to have access and dropped it down to two to save money because we didn't need as many seats.

16:44

And I think each seat costs a certain amount per year.

Speaker 2

16:47

So we've been paying for four seats.

Speaker 1

16:50

We were we started with four seats.

16:52

The first amendment dropped it to two.

Speaker 2

16:56

First amendment increased the cost.

16:58

Went from 60,000 some odd for seven years to 90,000 something for seven years.

Unassigned speaker

17:04

Okay.

Speaker 2

17:05

So I

Speaker 1

17:06

thought the second, I'm sorry, I might have re understood that wrong.

17:09

I thought it dropped the seats down to

Unassigned speaker

17:12

well,

Speaker 2

17:12

it increased the cost, and the justification was that we increased the number of seats.

17:17

I thought

Speaker 1

17:19

let's see, I have it here.

Speaker 3

17:22

Yeah, that's right.

17:23

The first amendment increased the number of seats, but that happened way back in, I think 2020.

17:29

So this is the second amendment, which drops the number of seats and increases the years.

Unassigned speaker

17:36

Okay,

Speaker 2

17:36

but if we're paying 16,000 now for four seats, now we would pay 16,000 for two seats.

17:43

That's reduced scope.

17:44

Why are we paying as the roughly the same amount?

Speaker 1

17:52

Let me see what we're let me see what we're paying.

Speaker 3

18:22

That amendment, I don't see that we're actually dropping the number of seats.

18:26

There's nothing in there that says that we're reducing it to two seats.

Unassigned speaker

18:30

Okay,

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Utilities Management█████████████████████████████████████37%
Contract Management████████████████████████24%
Electric Distribution████████████████16%
Procedural████████████12%
Fiscal Sustainability████4%
Risk Management████4%
Staffing███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Los Alamos Board of Public Utilities Regular Meeting - October 21, 2026

The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) met on Wednesday, October 21, 2026. The meeting included a lengthy debate on a 15-year software contract renewal, a revised presentation on APPA financial benchmarking data, and standard board and status reports.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes for the September 2 (Work Session) and September 16 (Regular Session) meetings.
  • Tank 4A Waterline Repair: The board recommended approval of Task Order No. 16 with Dub-L-EE for $460,000 (including a 15% contingency and NMGRT) to repair a blowout in an 18-inch transmission waterline in Two Mile Canyon. The item was forwarded to the County Council for approval.
  • Smartphone Meter Reading (SPMR) Contract Extension: The board recommended Amendment No. 2 to the SPMR agreement, extending it by 15 years through 2033, with a total not-to-exceed amount of $362,000. Board members expressed strong reluctance, criticizing the up-to-10% annual cost escalator clause and the eleventh-hour nature of the request, which left the board with no practical alternative. Staff acknowledged a breakdown in contract oversight, noting the agreement was not properly tracked or flagged for renewal. The board voted 3-0 to approve the extension but directed staff to return 120 days before the 2027 renewal date to present a formal transition plan to an alternative system.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No members of the public offered oral or written comments during the meeting.

Department Business

  • Utility Comparison APPA Data (Item 7.a): Joann Gentry and Richard Valerio presented significantly revised financial benchmarking data. The revisions corrected previous errors (double-counted O&M expenses) and adjusted for the distorting effect of the one-time Uniper settlement. Key findings included high O&M costs ($0.127 per kWh sold), a lean current ratio (1.40), and an operating ratio above 1.0, indicating a financial loss prior to the implementation of new time-of-use rates. Chair Gibson deferred a deep-dive discussion, noting the board needed time to absorb the corrected figures before tying them to FY28 budget preparations.

Board Business & Reports

  • Chair's Report: Chair Gibson reminded members to submit their annual self-evaluations by October 27.
  • Utilities Manager's Report: Deputy Utility Manager Gentry summarized the report in place of an absent Philo Shelton. Topics included pump skid delays for the Jemez snowmaking project, the discovery that the White Rock substation transformer was too large for the original plans, and an update on staffing vacancies.
  • County Manager's Report: Anne Laurent reported that County Council members had received feedback that Level 3 EV charging rates are too expensive and inquired about potential rate incentives. She also noted the introduction of an ordinance for LEDA and MRA support for a new development.
  • ESB Liaison Report: The board was updated on the Environmental Sustainability Board's activities, including a full board and planning for the 2027 work plan.

Status Reports

  • Electric Reliability: Staff corrected a previously mislabeled outage month; the correction resulted in no net change to the annual SAIDI metric.
  • Accounts Receivable: Accounts over 90 days past due remained generally stable. Write-offs older than four years remain technically collectible if the customer returns, with funds returning to the utility fund rather than the general fund.
  • Risk & Safety: A typographical error was flagged regarding electrical distribution hours worked in August (listed as 22,196.8 instead of an expected value near 2,000). Staff committed to correcting the report.

Key Outcomes

  • Votes: Consent agenda approved 3-0.
  • Directives: Staff must return 120 days before the 2027 SPMR renewal date with an alternative. Staff must share the corrected APPA data memorandum with absent board members. The board will schedule an in-depth review of the APPA data to guide budget strategy.
  • Next Steps: The agenda review meeting was scheduled for Friday, October 23. Upcoming November meetings will address EV rate structures, the DPU fee schedule, and the board's annual evaluation.

Meeting Transcript

They give us a file, and then we upload that file into Tyler for the meter reads. We do but they use this software to get the reads, and then create the file that we upload into Tyler. Which is not unusual. Okay. And so it sounds like generally our meter reader is the one that's going out to all these addresses every every day they read certain meters. They're not reading 472 meters in a day. But every day they go out and read a certain cycle of the meters and they use that app to put those actual reads from the meter into the system into their smartphone. So what we're paying for is the app. Is that the case? That's it. We're paying for the app. We're also paying for, I think, two seats, which where we can log in. Our meter readers have a login customer service has a login. And they can look at they can take photos of the meter. So if it looks the meter read looks funny, we can actually see the meter. We can log in and go to that meter, and we have the an actual picture of the meter. It's also some other way that if customer calls, we have that information available as well. And we have a photo of the meter. Okay. So what are we paying presently per year for this contract? Um it's about $16,000 right now. It's but was budgeted for this fiscal year. Don't know the exact dollar. I'm sorry. Let me see that. We started it. This contract started at about 9,000, wasn't it? Well, we got amended right away, which confused things somewhat. Well, I think the the second amendment then was we were paying for four seats of and that was four people to have access and dropped it down to two to save money because we didn't need as many seats. And I think each seat costs a certain amount per year. So we've been paying for four seats. We were we started with four seats. The first amendment dropped it to two. First amendment increased the cost. Went from 60,000 some odd for seven years to 90,000 something for seven years. Okay. So I thought the second, I'm sorry, I might have re understood that wrong. I thought it dropped the seats down to well, it increased the cost, and the justification was that we increased the number of seats. I thought let's see, I have it here. Yeah, that's right.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com