By EDWARD BIRNBAUM
CRC-2 Member

As a member of the most recent Utilities Charter Review Committee (CRC-2), I would like to correct some of the statements made by letter writers in opposition to passing the revised Article V Charter amendment that appears as Question 2 on the November ballot.

First, our Committee was NOT charged with determining whether or not DPU was run well, and nothing in the proposed revisions mandates any changes in how DPU operates. We were only asked by Council to address three major issues of concern:

• that current Article V gives the Board the authority to run DPU, but it is the taxpayers who are accountable for Board actions,
• whether the current so-called profit transfer is appropriate, and
• how to handle the sale or addition of an utility.

Second, the proposed revisions specifically require that the Board will set utility rates in order to “meet the ongoing operating and capital costs to provide for the long-term viability of each individual utility.”  (Sec 502-c)  Neither Council nor the Board could violate this requirement without facing legal consequences.

Third, the priority order of disbursing DPU dollars (Sec 504) is not changed in the proposed Article V, with the exception that in the proposed Charter, the transfer of funds from DPU to the County, currently specified by ordinance, was added as priority #6. The current amount is set to 5 percent, and any change must be negotiated between the Board and Council. Contrary to some statements that have been made, there is no provision for this percentage to be changed via the proposed Dispute Resolution process (Sec 505.5). It should be noted that priority #6 comes AFTER priority #5, which allocates “Amounts necessary for additions and improvements foreseen as necessary to meet future requirements for the utility systems …”, and AFTER priority #3 (see below).

Fourth, priority #3 states that “An adequate reserve to finance replacements required by normal depreciation of the utility plant or equipment …” is now linked specifically to the DPU Strategic and Long Range Plan. (Sec 504-c) This section also specifies that “Funds generated by one utility shall not be transferred to support another utility, or applied to support other County operations without approval by the Board and the Council.”  Again, the Dispute Resolution process does NOT apply to this provision. The Board and Council must both agree to any change.

Fifth, it should be noted that the Board claims that its job is to protect the “ratepayers”, which currently includes Los Alamos National Laboratory, whereas Council represents the “citizens” of the County.  Since the citizens, not the ratepayers own the County utilities through County government, decisions that may put ratepayers at odds with the citizens should ultimately be decided by Council, not left in limbo if the Board and Council cannot come to agreement, as the current Article V allows. This was the primary reason for my support of the decision to allow Council to resolve disputes between the Board and Council by a 5 to 2 super-majority vote.

Currently, the Board can stonewall Council by simply not proposing a budget or a strategic plan that Council can accept, or which run counter to the wishes of the citizens. The new provisions allow Council to break such a deadlock, but only with a supermajority vote of the Councilors after several public meetings. I urge you to vote FOR on Question 2 on Nov. 4.