City of Santa Fe Buckman Direct Diversion Board met July 11.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
1. CALL TO ORDER
This meeting of the Santa Fe County & City Buckman Direct Diversion Board meeting was called to order by Carol Romero-Wirth, BDD Board Chair, at approximately 4:08 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico. This meeting was conducted as a hybrid with in person and on line attendance. All votes were taken by a roll call.
2. ROLL CALL: Roll was called and a quorum was present as shown:
BDD Board Members Present: Member(s) Excused:
Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth, Chair Commissioner
Anna Hansen Commissioner Anna Hamilton
Councilor Jamie Cassutt [remotely]
Rolf Schmidt-Petersen, Citizen Member
Tom Egelhoff, The Club at Las Campanas [non-voting member] [remotely]
Jeffrey Guy, Las Campanas Water Cooperative [non-voting member] [remotely]
Alternates Present:
Peter Ives, Citizen Member Alternate
Others Present:
Rick Carpenter, BDD Facilities Manager
Nancy Long, BDD Legal Counsel
Kyle Harwood, BDD Legal Counsel
Bernardine Padilla, BDD Public Relations Coordinator
Delfin Peterson, BDD Administrative Assistant
Jesse Roach, City Public Utilities Division Director
Monique Maes, BDD Contracts Administrator
Danny Carter, BDD Chemist [remotely]
Robert Reine, Department of Energy EM-LA [remotely]
Joni Arends, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Jay Lazarus, Glorieta Geoscience, Inc.
Peter Hunt, Glorieta Geoscience, Inc.
Abby Guidry, Glorieta Geoscience, Inc.
Carina Julig, Santa Fe New Mexican
[Chair Romero-Wirth read the agenda captions throughout the meeting.]
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as published. Member Schmidt Petersen seconded and the motion passed by unanimous [4-0] roll call vote.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Are there items that have been pulled from Consent? Are there are items that the Board would like to hear? If not, are there any changes to the Consent? Is there a motion? Mr. Ives.
MR. IVES: Thank you, Madam Chair. I only had a question on the Daniels Insurance, Amendment #4, the packet references a 10 percent increase in the premiums for the policy. It says 6 percent due to increase of exposures and I was just wondering what – fire hazards or what?
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Should we pull that one off? So we can pull item 7.b. to answer that question. Any other items? Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Move to approve the Consent Agenda for items a, c, and d.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: And I’ll second that.
The motion to approve Consent items a, b, and d passed by unanimous [4-0] roll call vote.
7. ACTION ITEMS: CONSENT
a. Request for approval to extend chemical price agreement for an additional year from various awarded vendors for an amount not to exceed $607,779.50 for FY25
b. REMOVED [See page 8]
c. Request for approval of a General Services Agreement for on-call services with Pumptech Holdings LLC., d/b/a Alpha Southwest in an amount not to exceed $65,000 plus applicable NMGRT for FY2025
d. Request for approval of Amendment No. 1 to the General Services Agreement with Condor-New Age Logistics, LLC. in an amount not to exceed $70,000.00, plus NMGRT, for security services through September 30, 2024
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. June 6, 2024 Buckman Direct Diversion Board Meeting
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Are there changes from staff?
MR. CARPENTER: There are no changes.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Changes from the Board?
NANCY LONG (BDD Board Counsel): Madam Chair.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Yes.
MS. LONG: There were a couple of typos that were caught and provided to the recorder but they are not substantive.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Okay. Can I get a motion if there are no changes.
Mr. Schmidt Petersen moved to approve the June 6th meeting minutes. Commissioner Hamilton seconded and the motion passed by unanimous [4-0] roll call vote. .
5. PRESENTATION/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Monthly Update on BDD Operations
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: I don’t see Randy Sugrue in the Chambers. Mr. Carpenter are you going to be doing that update?
MR. CARPENTER: Yes, Madam Chair, I’ll fill in for Mr. Sugrue. He’s out of town.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Okay, terrific.
MR. CARPENTER: I’ll do a quick summary of his item. There are no big changes from the previous months about what we would expect for this time of year. This report is from June 2024. Raw water diversions average 8.38 million gallons per day. Drinking water deliveries to Booster Stations 4A and 5A averaged 7.02 million gallons per day. Raw water deliveries to Las Campanas through Booster Station 2A was 1.18 million gallons. The BDD is providing approximately 49 percent of the water supply to the City and the County and most of the rest is coming out of Canyon Road Water Treatment Plant. And the third item you can see from Randy Sugrue’s diagram, we’re right about where we were last year for our monthly projection rates.
With that, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I would stand for questions.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Thank you. Questions from the Board?
Councilor Cassutt, I think your hand is up.
COUNCILOR CASSUTT: No it is not.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Okay, sorry. It’s a smaller hand – I can’t read that. Councilor Cassutt do raise your hand if you want to participate. Member Schmidt Petersen. And welcome Tom.
MEMBER EGELHOFF: Can you hear me?
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: We can.
MEMBER EGELHOFF: I had a question for Rick. I don’t think we’ve been able to divert San Juan-Chama water since June 21st due to some – I’m not sure, some kind of construction or something. Do we have any update on that?
MR. CARPENTER: Yes, Mr. Egelhoff. When this happens it is almost always due to the fact that we have an impactment of flood ops in Abiquiu which is, in fact, what happened. My understanding is that we’re back out of flood ops and we have access to San Juan-Chama water now. I don’t know that. I haven’t checked it in a couple of days.
MEMBER EGELHOFF: Okay, do we have another point of contact when Randy is out of town?
MR. CARPENTER: For the next couple of days it is probably myself for the month and Dr. Roach is always very knowledgeable.
MEMBER EGELHOFF: Okay, thanks.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: We do have Dr. Roach in the audience; is that something that you’re familiar with? We’ll get the answer, Tom, and get it back to you.
MEMBER EGELHOFF: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. CARPENTER: Madam Chair, if I could add to that?
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Sure.
MR. CARPENTER: Mr. Egelhoff, you may want to note this. We do have plenty of native water that we have diverted. We are not in danger – I don’t know the exact number on that either but I know there is plenty of it. So we’ll still be able to divert water.
MEMBER EGELHOFF: Okay, thanks.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Madam Chair.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Yes, Mr. Schmidt-Petersen.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: I just wanted to do a little bit of follow up to that. I believe the flood op issue at Abiquiu is actually could have been that Rio Chama was blocked by a sediment plug from a summer thunder storm and that excluded releases out of Abiquiu. And at that same point in time I saw an article, I haven’t seen the paper, that the State Engineer informed the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District that due to the declining flows of the Rio Grande and I believe some compact related delivery issues that, at least the State Engineer’s Office, is expressing a concern about deliveries into Elephant Butte and I was wondering if there’s a squeeze at Buckman but it sounds like the answer is no.
MR. CARPENTER: You are correct. The answer is no.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Thank you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Okay, other questions from the Board? Mr. Ives, Councilor Ives, Member Ives – I never know what to call you.
MR. IVES: Rick, I was curious, on the third page where they talk about regional water overview, it says, daily metered regional water demand for the month of June 2024 –
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Can I ask you to speak into your microphone as well.
MR. IVES: -- you certainly can – is 14.4 million gallons per day. That sounded a little high to me based upon past experience and I was wondering given what the fierceity of our healthy monsoon season if the Rio Grande was still flowing at 1,000 cfs? Why was that hand-in-hand high demand and also when we say daily metered regional water demand what factors go into the regional water demand?
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you for the question, Board member Ives.
Demand has been up. It got hotter sooner. And, yes, the monsoons have kicked in and we’d like for more of it but that’s very recently and demand has gone down from that number, just recently. As far as the regional demand, what Mr. Sugrue calls “regional water demand” that is contributions from all of the sources – Buckman, Buckman wells, City wells, Canyon Road – it’s a catchall phrase.
MR. IVES: Thank you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Other question from the Board? All right. Thank you for that update. We will then move to your update as Facilities Manager
b. Report from the BDD Facilities Manager
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Mr. Carpenter – I’ll kick it back to you.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. A few things. Major repair and replacement, we do have one unexpected raw water pipeline failure to over $28,000. That has since been fixed since I wrote this memo. But I am required to report that expense to the Board.
As far as the BDD Rebuild Project process we are still working through the RFQ phase. That is being evaluated. It’s been a little slow going but we are making progress on that as well.
I have listed the current vacancies for the BDD and as Board members can see there are quite a few of them. We had an all-hands meeting that included BDD vacancies just yesterday and we discussed ways to get these filled and filled pretty quickly. We are working on that. Related to that though, we were able to make an offer that was accepted for the accounting supervisor position. It’s been vacant for awhile now and it’s a critical position. That individual will be starting in just two or three weeks or maybe sooner if we can pull that off.
There are a couple of items I would like to call to the attention of the Board that didn’t make it into my memo which is sort of late breaking news. One of which is and the Board is probably aware but just in case not, the City of Las Vegas contacted the BDD with regard to their water crisis that they were having due to flooding and the BDD reached out to the City of Santa Fe. Dr. Roach did most of the heavy lifting to provide water to the City of Las Vegas through metered hydrants and to their tanker truck and hauled water back to Las Vegas. It was metered and it is City water. It is not BDD water, we don’t have any. They were charged $6.06 per 1,000 gallons that’s the bulk rate that the City normally charges and that rate is intended to recovery costs associated with. That was last week.
There has been some movement on the endangered species topic. I’ll just tread something that one of our own esteemed lawyers wrote. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed its 12-month review of the two proposed species with habitat in the Rio Grande and determined that neither warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. According to the Notification of Findings in the Federal Register, the agency concluded from its review of scientific and commercial information regarding past, present and future stressors to the species and threats that neither the Rio Grande chub nor the Rio Grande sucker is in danger of extirpation.
And that’s my update, Madam Chair. I stand for question.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Questions from the Board? Yes.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: I have a couple of questions for Rick. I was wondering about the raw water pipeline failures; does that happen very frequently or is it pretty random?
MR. CARPENTER: Madam Chair, members of the Board, that’s actually a pretty good question. The pipe that failed is an HDPE pipe coming out of the raw water diversion. It has never failed before. I took a good hard look at it along with my maintenance supervisor and we couldn’t really figure out why it failed. It shouldn’t have. So it’s very rare.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Thank you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Other questions from the Board? Commissioner Hamilton.
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Okay. So I’m a little surprised and concerned about the endangered species decision. Would you be willing to say 37 words about the implications for BDD considerations if there are any?
KYLE HARWOOD (BDD Counsel): Rick, with your permission, I’ll field this.
MR. CARPENTER: Madam Chair, if I could ask Mr. Harwood to field that question.
MR. HARWOOD: Madam Chair, members of the Board. Your concern, if I understand it, is what are the implications of these two species not being listed?
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Yeah, I think it might be a more diffused question than what would have been the implications if they had been listed but – MR. HARWOOD: Yes, I hope it is clear that because they are not listed they will not have critical habitat established for them and we will not be looking at those kinds of reopeners to our environmental permits nor implications for water operations such as the silvery minnow have exerted on water operations in the middle valley, upper valley, lower valley. So, it’s a – I’ll just say from my perspective, WildEarth Guardians filed a comprehensive petition requesting the review. The Interstate Stream Commission under Rolf’s leadership at the time, and this is many years ago of course, provided very detailed comments about issues with some of the studies that had been relied upon and other concerns about data being taken out of context and so I can only surmise because it really is a black box the process that the service goes through when they are making this final warranted or non warranted decision and they draw upon scientific knowledge from across the country to make recommendations all the way up to the secretary’s level. So I can only conclude that those species are not as in as bad of shape as some had feared and that some of the environmental conditions that are stresses those species are not as bad as some had feared. And I should also note that there are a series of conservation agreement that were signed after the requested listing but before this decision and those conservation agreements are designed to have intergovernmental coordination on how to support these specific species and so hopefully that work will go forward and the sum of which will be the continued health of these two particular species.
And it’s a fairly definitive answer in the negative, in other words, I think there would have to be a whole bunch of new studies performed in order to provide the foundation for a future requested petition. And we also did talk with the staff at Interstate Stream Commission including some very, very experienced fish biologists whether they thought that the underlying studies that were done in support of this decision were sound or whether they were attackable, and Rolf knows Rich Valdez well, and the conclusion was that those studies were done in accordance with standard practices. So those seem to be sound review documents. The sum of all of which is we don’t have two other species to wrestle with in managing our diversion which is welcome news from that perspective.
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Right. I just wanted to get that out so that we kind of understood that. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harwood.
MR. HARWOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Board.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Other questions on the facilities manager’s report from the Board? Mr. Schmidt-Petersen, yes.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: This was answered to some degree by Director Roach at the last meeting but I just wanted to kind of follow-up on it. Just the emerging strategy is going to be over the next few months with your departure Rick and Randy’s also and if the double-fill position is still available to take over some of these operations?
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: I do believe between Mr. Carpenter and Dr. Roach, the Water Division Director from the City of Santa Fe, you can probably tag team this answer.
MR. CARPENTER: Madam Chair, I’d like to ask Dr. Roach to comment on that follow-up.
JESSE ROACH: Madam Chair, member Schmidt-Petersen, thank you for the question. So I’ll start with the facilities manager position. It has been posted and we have four eligible applicants. They are all actually internal candidates. At this time, the posting is going to stay open until filled. However, Jonathan Montoya who is our lead at sources supply has agreed to fill in on an interim basis as soon as we can sort of make that official. And he will hopefully spend time at BDD for the latter half of this month with Rick and then continue to spend time with BDD until the permanent position is hired to allow for some continuity in what is a fairly significant transition, of course. I also intend to spend more time than usual at BDD. I’ve been spending one day a week there and it will probably go to two or three as necessary to assist in what I can in this transition.
And then on the operations superintendent, that position is posted and the strategy there is – I have reached out to all four of the lead operators at BDD asking them if they would be interested in serving in an interim basis in that position. I have an affirmative from a couple of them. I am waiting for others to think about it and then we’ll make a selection from within that pool based on Rick and Randy’s input for somebody to serve in an interim basis in that position as well while we move forward on a permanent hire there.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Thank you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Commissioner Hamilton.
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Thank you. Is Randy’s position posted already?
DR. ROACH: Madam Chair, Commissioner Hamilton, yes.
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: I thought you said that. Thank you very much.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: I’m looking at the list of vacancies and it’s currently advertised because it is on that list; right?
MR. CARPENTER: Madam Chair, no, this is recent and didn’t make it to the list.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Okay, just a note to anybody following that this memo that is in the packet and on PrimeGov does not include the operations superintendent as being advertised but what we’ve just heard here that it is advertised.
MR. CARPENTER: That’s my understanding.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: And it’ll remain open until filled just like the facilities manager; is that correct?
MR. CARPENTER: I think the strategy is to double-fill the positions as soon as possible so we can have a smooth transition.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Great.
DR. ROACH: And, Madam Chair, my understanding also is that it’s posted and based on these questions and my statement in the affirmative, I will confirm that.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Okay, great, thank you. Other questions from the Board on this topic or anything else in the facilities manager’s report? All right. Thank you and thank everybody for that update.
Okay, we then go to our item that was pulled from Consent. It’s item 7.b.
7. b. Request for approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement Item #21-0421 with Daniels Insurance, Inc to increase compensation in an amount up to $12,346.39 plus applicable NMGRT for FY2025 insurance coverage services
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: We have Monique Maes our Contracts Administrator here to answer question and I believe Member Ives you have a question related to this item.
MR. IVES: Thank you, Madam Chair, and hopefully a very simple question. There’s a reference in the background section of the memo, third paragraph that says and it’s actually in the first paragraph as well, but that there’s a 6 percent increase in exposures. I’m wondering what those are, how they’re measured, just a little bit of background.
MONIQUE MAES (BDD Contracts Administrator): Madam Chair, Mr. Ives, I would have to see – I don’t have the policy with me and I would have to check to see exactly which exposures and if they detailed any. I can get with our insurance person at Daniels Insurance to ask what exactly the increased exposures were. All he had told me of the increased exposures were that they are industry-wide and the reason this amendment had to go through is because the number he gave me in May when he went to do the underwriting that’s when he discovered that there was an increase. As far as to what those increases are, I’m not sure but he just mentioned that it’s an industry-wide increase that they’re seeing insurances go up overall.
MR. IVES: Okay, because it seems the second reference to the 4 percent increase in the overall account rate which seemed to be that sort of industry-wide elevation which you almost come to expect. And I actually wondered if it might be due to any sort of perceived or real sense of increased fire risk which is something that we’re seeing significantly in many places. If you don’t mind following up with that question and sending me an email or something would be perfectly fine or even at the next meeting would be perfectly fine too. I don’t have any problems with what is being proposed here.
MS. MAES: I will reach back out to you and follow up with further explanation from our insurance.
MR. IVES: Thank you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: And we probably need to follow up with the Board, generally, and then we’ll see if you can incorporate it in one of the reports for the August meeting so the public is also informed. But it sounds like, if you’re saying it’s an industry-wide thing it is not plant specific.
MS. MAES: Would you like to hear from the Daniels Insurance person?
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Let’s talk about that. Why don’t you reach out and see what the answer is and let’s see how complicated it is. Because if it’s just, Hey, this is the natural increase in providing insurance, then I don’t think we need to bother them or the Board. But if it is something more specific or more concerning or more complicated then we’ll figure that out. So let’s move back on that. Thank you and thank you for being here.
Any other questions on this item? Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Move to approve.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Second.
The motion to approve passed by unanimous [4-0] roll call vote.
5. ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION AND ACTION
a. Request formal adoption of the FY2025 Annual Operating Budget
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: And we have Rick Carpenter the facilities manager here tonight to address this item and I think it might be helpful if you just kind of help us understand the process by which we go through approving this budget as this Board represents two jurisdictions, the City and the County, and the process is a little bit cumbersome but has to happen in order to get approved.
MR. CARPENTER: Yes, Madam Chair and members of the Board, I would be happy to do that. It is a little cumbersome and this is really just the last stage and a formality to get the budget approved. It was originally passed by this Board in March of 2024 and I’m pretty happy about that because it’s pretty early in the year for us. And then it was recommended by this Board to the City and the County for approval in their own respective budgets. They have done that and in accordance with the JPA that provides guidance to this Board, the budget is required to come back to this Board for formal adoption which is the subject of this item. The staff is requesting the formal adoption of the annual BDD operating budget.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: And I think that has probably changed in here is that the salary increases are now here; correct?
MR. CARPENTER: That was the single largest change.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Right, because when we first looked at this, first saw this, that had not yet been determined in the City’s budget and since BDD employees are City employees there was a placeholder there but not an official number yet.
MR. CARPENTER: Exactly and that’s the significant change.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Are there questions on this budget. Member Schmidt-Petersen.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: One question because I haven’t been here for the earlier parts of this process but overall I think it’s a great write-up and gives me a pretty good idea of how the facility has operated through time.
I just wanted to remark from my experience at the ISC previously, particularly in the last three years where everything was costing a whole lot more money this is really quite remarkable because it is actually holding relatively flat line despite increases and so on. I think that’s due in large part to your operations and the Board’s and others. But it is pretty remarkable from my experience because the cost of everything has been going up 28 percent something like that in many places. Obviously, staffing has gone up but do you anticipate any sharp increases in the near future? You had brought up in a previous meeting the cost of dumping fees and things like that for solids. Is there anything in here that we should be thinking about that could escalate significantly?
MR. CARPENTER: Board member Schmidt-Petersen, that’s a really good question. What I can anticipate as being possible is an increase across three items: chemicals for treating solids, electricity and natural gas.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: And I would just add that that is phase two on our historical experience that is where we have been seeing increases. So I think that is accurate.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Great, thank you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Other questions on the budget? Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HAMILTON: Move to approve.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: I’ll second.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: The dynamic dual on my right. Commissioner Hamilton moved to approve the budget for FY25 and Member Schmidt-Petersen made the second. And we need a roll call vote.
The motion passed by unanimous [4-0] roll call vote.
9. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Hello, Mr. Public. This is Jay Lazarus with GGI. How are you?
JAY LAZARUS: I’m well, thank you, Chair.
Rick is not going to like this but our company was tasked with providing the water for the tankers to Las Vegas. Rick doesn’t like taking the credit. But Rick, Bernie and Jesse, I can’t thank enough for helping us. Within 12 hours of me contacting Rick he had the system in motion to get water to the tankers that we brought from Louisiana. Jesse was instrumental in helping and also John Dupuis. Bernie went above and beyond by bringing ice to the truck drivers, providing them with showers at the facility and anything else she could do. So from our company our responsibilities were way, way, way lessened because of Rick and his staff and we want to thank you. He’s not happy with me now.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Thank you. Well, he had better get used to it because there are a few tributes coming his way in the future. Other matters from the public?
8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: Member Schmidt-Petersen.
MEMBER SCHMIDT-PETERSEN: Madam Chair, I have one item and that is having worked with Rick since the early 2000s, I want to wish him all the best in his retirement. He has done a tremendous job for the City of Santa from my experience and then also with Buckman. And there’s a number of stories that would be better told in other places but I really believe that, from my experience as working at the ISC on Rio Grande issues, Rick with the help from Kyle and a number of others for the planning, the permitting and the building of Buckman without his honed demeanor and his persistence to basically work through a tremendous number of issues, I don’t think the project would have been completed at least at the time that it was. Again, it was an amazing job and I just want to acknowledge that Rick and your just continued dedication to this project and the water supply for all of Santa Fe and the County it really has made a positive difference. So thank you very much. [applause]
MR. CARPENTER: Thanks everybody and Rolf coming from you especially that means a lot to me and having worked with you for a couple of decades. We did a lot of good together and got a lot accomplished so right back at you.
CHAIR ROMERO-WIRTH: I want to let everyone know that we will be doing a retirement party for Rick so that we can make these tributes to his tenure, his important work that you’ve done at the facility and I do believe we will be noticing that gathering because we all will be together and not in this room. I know that Commissioner Hansen was sad to not be here tonight because I believe that this is your last meeting. So we are arranging for another venue where we can do these tributes and recognize your service. So I just want to let the Board know that you’ll be getting a date, time and place very soon so we can properly send Rick off on his retirement.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the Board. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that.
Any other matters from the Board?
11. NEXT MEETING: August 1, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.
12. ADJOURN
Having completed the agenda and with no further business to come before the Board, Chair Romero-Wirth declared this meeting adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m.
https://santafe.primegov.com/public/portal