Buckman Direct Diversion Board Thu, Mar 5, 2026 · Buckman Direct Diversion Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1067 == Executive Summary == The Buckman Direct Diversion Board discussed ongoing operations, facility upgrades, and critical water quality monitoring efforts, particularly concerning potential impacts from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The board approved the meeting agenda and previous minutes unanimously. Key operational updates included average raw water diversions of 4.9 MGD and drinking water deliveries of 4.67 MGD in February 2026, with 70% of the city and county's drinking water coming from BDD. Staff anticipate continued reliance on San Juan Chama water due to expected low Rio Grande flows this summer. Facility upgrades are progressing, with a vendor for the PLC Control System Upgrade expected next month and a feasibility study for the Design Rebuild Project due in April. Staffing vacancies are also being addressed. == Key Decisions == - Approved the meeting agenda unanimously. - Approved the minutes from February 5th unanimously. - Approved the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 BDD operating budget and other fund contributions (vote outcome not specified in this section, but later implied as passed). - Granted the facilities manager requested authority within the major repair and replacement fund unanimously (6 'Aye/Yes' votes). == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed unanimously. - Approval of Minutes (February 5th) — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 BDD operating budget and other fund contributions — Passed (vote count not specified in this section, but later implied as passed). - Motion to grant the facilities manager requested authority within the major repair and replacement fund — Passed unanimously (6 'Aye/Yes' votes). == Public Comment == No members of the public were present or joined via Zoom to offer comments during the initial public comment period. During discussions, Member Peterson praised the work plan's format and raised concerns about increased activity at LANL. Vice Chair Green clarified that LANL's increased pit production is not yet official. Commissioner Hughes inquired about plans to capture the hexavalent chromium plume and LANL's cooperation. No public comments were made on the electricity budget or MR&R plan authority discussions. == Topics == - BDD Operations Update - Water Quality Work Plan - Facilities Manager Report - FY27 Budget Approval - Facilities Manager Authority - PNM Tariff Discussions - Agenda Approval - Minutes Approval - Public Comment - Roll Call == Full Transcript == Sorry about that. Right over there. All right. It is now 4:04 p.m. I would like to call the Thursday, March 5th, Buckman Direct Diversion Board meeting to order. May I please get a roll call? The galley here. Here. I am here. Thank you so much. Moving on to approval of the agenda. Are there any changes from staff or the committee? And if not, can I get a motion? Move to approve as presented. Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to approval of the consent agenda. We don't have anything on there. Moving on to approval of the minutes from the February 5th Buckman Direct Diversion Board meeting. Are there any changes from staff or the committee? Can I get a motion? Seconded then. Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And then on to matters from the public. Are there any members of the public here who would like to present us with matters? Not seeing any either. And there's no one on the Zoom. People zoom on in or no? Don't believe so. Okay. On to presentations. We have the monthly update on BDD operations. Matt Sandaval, BDD Operations Superintendent, is here to present. On to you, Matt. Thank you, Madam Chair Casset. Members of the board, I'll be presenting the BDD operations report for the month of February 2026. BDD diversions and deliveries have averaged in million gallons per day as follows: Raw water diversions 4.9 MGD, raw water delivery to Los Companas at booster station 2A 0, drinking water deliveries through booster station 4A and 5A 4.67 million gallons per day. BDD contributed 70% of the water, drinking water to the city and county for the month of February 2026. And I will stand for questions. Any questions from the board? Member Schmidt Peterson. Just one quick question, Matt. I'm just, I don't know that I saw it here. I'm sure it's in here for the operations the last two months. Are you diverting native Rio Grande water or San Juan Chama water? Thank you, Member Schmidt Peterson. So we were calling for 1.5 million gallons per day of SJC stored water and then the rest is native. Okay. I guess I'd just add one thing there. I should have given you what's in your report for other parts too is this spring looks exactly like last spring. And on the Rio Grande, my expectation would be very low flows again this summer with the need for San Juan Chama water there, but perhaps not native Rio Grande water. So just a heads up. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. You're free. Moving on to 7B report from the BDD Facilities Manager. We have Bradley Prada here to present. Brad, on to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, board members. This report covers our progress on key facility projects, procurement, and staffing as of March 2026. We are seeing movement on our major repair and replacement projects. The RFP for the PLC control system upgrade is moving forward as expected. We have finished the proposal review and expect to select a vendor within the next month. I'm also happy to report that the cyclical replacement for the granular activated carbon has been successfully completed, which keeps our treatment performance at its highest level. Moving on to the design rebuild project. The RFI was posted back in January and the posting period is 20 days, excuse me, 60 days. At the same time, our project team, including AECOM, Wright Water, and staff from the city, county are deep into a feasibility study. We plan to share that completed study with the board at the April meeting. At that time, we will present the findings for your review and input. It is important to me that the board has a chance to review the study's direction before we move into an RFQ phase. Our projected timeline for the rest of this year is clear. We expect to post the RFQ for a 30-day period in or before the end of May. That will lead into a technical review and selection process from June through August. If the schedule holds, we are hopeful to bring a contract back to the board for the 30% design phase this September. We've already drafted the RFQ to ensure there is no dead time once the board review is complete. Finally, onto the staffing front. We are working closely with city staff to fill our open positions. We are now down to only three remaining vacancies and we have strong leads on those. Reaching this level of staffing has been a massive undertaking and I want to thank the team for their persistence in making sure that we are properly resourced to meet our goals. Thank you and I'll stand for questions. Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from members of the board? No. Yes. No. Vice Chair Green. Thank you, Chair. I, we're pretty close. We're pretty close. I'm, I'm very hopeful that we can bring it forward. I, I appreciate a critical path, right? You know, we've heard about how this has lingered and we've three steps forward, three steps back, and so let's try to have a timeline. And I like seeing, oh, we have September to look forward to and all those things so that we can sort of keep some accountability here. And, anyway, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments at this time? No. Thank you so much, Brad. Okay. Moving on to item 7C, presentation of Rio Grande Water Quality Calendar Year 2026 work plan pursuant to BDDB Resolution Number 2022-2. We have Jim Rester. Did I do that correctly? Oh my gosh. Thank you. Who is a consultant with GZA Geo Environmental Inc. DBA Glorieta Geoscience and then of course Kyle Harwood from our legal counsel for Buckman Direct Diversion and I will hand it on over to you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. And I really appreciate that nobody ever gets my name right on the first try. So, You know, I'm usually referred to as Casset, Casset, Casset. So, I, I understand the, the pain. So, Okay. I appreciate it. So, hopefully you all have the water quality work plan was part of your packet. I'm not going to read through the whole thing, but I'd just like to touch on the items that we see as important going forward. The, the work plan is set up with three tiers. So, tier one being the more immediate items, tier two things that we expect to work on this year, but maybe lower priority, and then tier three being things that are sort of at the bottom of the list, but we want to have them included in case they become more accurate. Excuse me. So, number one on our list for tier one issues is the memorandum of understanding with LANL. That was signed in December. For 2026, what we're anticipating is just continuing to work with DOE to monitor discharges of storm water and implement changes to the camera configuration at the B110.7 gauge. We did meet with them in January to look at that camera configuration and have been working with them to get that camera selected and Kyle's been following up with their attorney on the progress on that. And in May, we anticipate participating in the annual review, which is to review the early notification system and BDD operations assembly program as well as the sediment transport mitigation project. And we'll work with the BDD staff on intake sampling and LANL Pueblo sediment sampling as, as that. Our next item is the LANL Pueblo Canyon Waningland discharge lag time determination. The purpose of this is to try and quantify the time it takes for storm water discharges from Pueblo Canyon to reach and get past the BDD intake so that the BDD operation staff has a better idea of what that time frame is where the diversion needs to be closed off after a storm event discharges from Pueblo. Item three is broken up into two parts, but it's all related to the hexavalent chromium issue that I think everybody's familiar with. But part of that issue is the water rights issue. The board protested the application that went in for water rights for the treatment system that was about 69. That application is still pending, but some of the interim measures that have been proposed or implemented suggested they might need to convert up to 1690 acre feet of water. So that, that, that application has not been filed with the state engineer, but if that's the path they have to go down to file that, we'll keep on top of that and support, support the board with just that application if that's what we need to see table for that discussion. The, the second part of the chromium is monitoring the chromium plume migration. There's, there's been a lot going on with the chromium plume. And there was a well that was put in. It's called the Simmer 3 well that was drilled in 2025. Screening sample of that well came back with a hit of chromium, which suggests that plume was larger than what was expected. And then most recently in early February, NMED issued administrative orders of compliance that made the lab shut down the mitigation operations as, as they were currently going on along with some pretty hefty fines. So right now that's all in flux in terms of how much, how they're going to mitigate the plume, how they're going to characterize the plume, what, what might need to happen with that. So we'll here to provide support for however needed monitoring those, those activities as they go forward. Item number four under tier one is PFAS. For PFAS, there's just a lot going on within the regulatory world in terms of coming up with what the regulatory standards are. So really, we're just going to stay focused on what those changes and rules that are in play are. Prior to that, MPDS primacy, again, that's so, so that the bill to pass the Senate and M or to get primacy for Mexico on water regulations, those. The NMED is in the process of developing the permitting rules and is additional Water Quality Control Commission public hearing spring of 2026. So we'll be keeping track of that. And the most recent update on that is that the regulations are, the proposed regulations are going to go in front of the Water Quality Control Commission on and the comment period for that opens on March 13. So, we'll be working to get comments on those patients. Moving into the two tier two issues. So, the LANL MPDS permits. So this goes back to the privacy issue in some ways, but the EPA has determined that that LANL and PON are, are waters in the US. So as MPDS permits come up for renewal, LANL will eye on those. And this paid in public hearing that's those, the sitewide environmental impact statement, which fondly referred to as TWICE, that has been moving forward. BDD submitted comments on that draft, the draft TWICE in five. So we'll just keep an eye on that to see what if those comments and if there's follow that. On the consent order. So this is the tier three, tier three issues, the LANL consent order is just a proposed actions that LANL will take, schedule laid out how they'll do these. So, we're kind of tracking those. Of interest this year in the 2026 plan, they're developing what they're calling their phase three investigation work plan for Pueblo Canyon and for Upper Salamos Pueblo Canyon. That's part of their work plan that's due in September of 2026. And that is of interest to the board. We'll keep an eye on that, see what that work plan is looking like. Item nine on our list is the Clean Water Act's integrated important list of impaired waters. So that list came out in 20, in February 2025, has been sampling the reach between SI and Coach for institutions of concern that were identified in that. And so those results are due out. Sampling is going to be finished November 6th, and the results will be out in the spring of 2025. So we'll just wait. We got the LA County MSO permit. So that has to do with stormwater discharges from the Los Alamos urban area outside of the laboratory. The lab has its own stormwater permits. So the LA County's permit has expired but has been administratively continued. So they're just operating under that permit, which means they can't add any new diversion. And when that permit gets up for renewal, that moves forward. Then the last item on the list is the triennial review of state surface water quality standards. That actually wrapped up in 2026 for the last three-year period. So we really don't anticipate, we kept it in planning. So with that, I'll stand for questions. **Chair:** Wonderful. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Questions, comments from the board? Member Peterson. **Member Peterson:** Chair, yeah, I have a, well, first of all, I just want to say I really like the form of the work plan that you have here where, you know, we have these distinct areas of focus that you're working on and it kind of gives us a feel for where the priorities are and so on. That's really good. I kind of wonder with this, you know, there's been so much building going on and so much additional work at LANL the last few years. I know that, you know, they're upping their manufacturing of plutonium pits and things like that. And I'm just wondering, you know, if any of that changes or potentially changes the focus of where we should be. And I don't know if you guys have thought about that or not, or if there's anything to be concerned. **Speaker:** Thank you. Member Smith Peterson, I think that a lot of that construction is intended to be addressed by the SWICE, Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement, and there was a lot of pressure put on the lab to start that process, and I think it's now slowed down for several reasons. But obviously, all the new facilities need to get permits consistent with federal law and state law where it applies. We have mostly been looking at the older projects and the cleanup work. That's been a frequent focus of this board's interest in the past with different members. So we do continue to monitor that. But the short answer is that I think a lot of the new projects up at the lab are intended to be covered by the SWICE. And I think it's probably a good time here in one of 26 for us to inquire whether we get a little more information on how quickly the next step in that process is going to be happening. So when we get an answer back on that, we'll bring it back to Brad perhaps and include it in a facility manager's update if that's appropriate or something bigger. **Member Peterson:** That works fine for me. Thank you. **Speaker:** And I would also just say your compliments about the memo really go to former Counselor Romero Worth, who had the leadership to pass the resolution that drives this memo and its structure. We're happy to take the thanks, but it's really due to her. **Member Peterson:** Always happy to give Carol credit all the time. **Chair:** Vice Chair Green. **Vice Chair Green:** So just to follow on your point, I know that this increased pit production is, I went to a LANL presentation today. It is not official, and so they're not making any plans about it. So they're not, so everything that they say until they get the actual directive to do it, everything, whether it's a SWICE or whatever, is going to be based on things that are concrete. So when we hear that it's for real, then we have to ask that question. **Speaker:** Thank you. **Vice Chair Green:** I asked that very same question. I said, "Do your plans here for hiring take into effect this increase?" And they said, "No, we don't do those things until we've actually had signed things." **Speaker:** Thank you. **Chair:** Commissioner Hughes. **Commissioner Hughes:** Could you talk a little bit more about number 3B, hexavalent chromium, whether there's any plans to actually capture the plume and keep it from reaching the Rio Grande? **Speaker:** Thank you. Yeah. So what I would say on that is that, so these administrative orders of compliance that were issued to the lab by NMED, one was from the groundwater quality bureau, one was from the AS bureau, and they lay out specific things that have to be done in terms of characterizing the extent, better characterizing the extent of the plume, and where they need to drill wells and recommendations for how they need to be the waste. But I think it's essentially a directive to answer your question. **Commissioner Hughes:** Yeah. And is LANL cooperating? **Speaker:** That I can't answer. We have reached out to LANL to request additional information about that Simmer 3 well. And I wouldn't say they weren't cooperative, but we have not been given any additional information. **Commissioner Hughes:** Okay. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you, Commissioner. Anything else? **Chair:** Well, thank you so much. And thank you, Carol, because this was very, very clear and straightforward and I really do appreciate it. So, thank you for being here. All right. Moving on to our discussion agenda. We have one action item. It is a request for approval and recommendation to Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners and City of Santa Fe governing body to approve the fiscal year 2027 Buckman Direct Diversion operating budget and other fund contributions. We have Bradley Prada, Kurt, and Kurt Traverse from Clifton Larson Allen presenting. So I will send it on to you guys, whoever wants to get started with starting with the presentation. **Bradley Prada:** Thank you, Madam Chair and board members. I have been your accounting continuity support for BDD since June of 2024 for those periods when BDD's internal accounting is in transition, like we are right now. I also presented last year's budget. I'll tell you when those transitions occur, budget season. **Speaker:** Thank you. And for any members of the public, real fast, I just want to make a quick correction. Our agenda says that we're getting the presentation of the proposed FY2026, but this is actually the FY2027. So the primary caption is correct, but we just want people to know we're talking about next year, not this year. Thank you. So BDD staff are pleased to present the proposed Buckman Direct Diversion annual operating budget for fiscal year 2027, along with proposed contributions to the major repair and replacement fund. This proposed budget accounts for all projected necessary costs to meet the board's service level objectives and to continue to provide high-quality water to our partners. In your packets is the 13-page summary of the fiscal year 27 budget proposal, again, prepared using the same methodology, support files, discussions with our program directors, and with our partners as we did in prior years. Okay. So the budget memo highlights, if we look at that, the budget, we are requesting a budget approval of $9,366,000 for fiscal year 2027 operations. And it has partner contributions and solar rebate revenues associated with that. Fiscal year 2027 budget requested increased by $580,000. The emergency, oh, I'm sorry. The major repair and replacement fund is a $1,695,000 request contribution. That is a decrease from prior year requests. Two years ago it was 1.9. Last year it was about 1.8. So I'd like to call out a few areas in that budget summary. So on page three, we have a pie chart which sort of breaks down these expenditures. Again, it's visually, it's, you know, nice to see. You can see the largest part of that is personnel. That's about 45% of total expected costs. You know, as Brad mentioned, we're actually staffing levels are actually increasing and getting to where they should be. So that's, that's where those staffing levels will occur. Your other big areas are electricity costs, chemicals, and all other operating costs, which would include things like our contracts and areas like that. The next area I'd like to call out is looking at the BDD programs on page eight. And again, that brings the pie chart. What do we spend our money on? We're spending mostly on operations, almost again, 50% of it. Operations includes that electricity, the chemicals, things like that. So this is not just personnel costs. This is what it takes to run it. The other major component, you know, as you would expect, is maintenance. We have administrative costs, and, you know, within administrative includes our fiscal agent fee that we pay to the city we're operating. If we move to page 11, that's the major repair and replacement fund proposals. You know, at two parts of that, we sort of look at, you know, what is our balance? You know, when we ended fiscal year 25 with a certain balance. If you'll remember earlier this year, we did bring a large number of projects forward into this fiscal year. We had a carry forward, I want to say it was about $2 million, and that was some discussion. We've actually spent a good amount of that money this year. We've already spent $1.7 million. You know, as Brad mentioned, we've got the GA project that's going to be completed. We've got another few projects that were in bid for the PLC Scada project, things that will get encumbered this year. So we're actually going to almost use all of that $4 million that's coming from prior years. We're actually going to may not spend it, but it will be encumbered. So we didn't spend a lot last year. That's definitely changed. And Brad's team and all the staff have done a good job about getting these projects over the line. So for the fiscal year 2027 proposed contributions, again, that's about $1.7 million. It's a little bit less than last year. And I would like to call out the third paragraph, and, you know, I'll read that one. This is a little bit more of a new introduction this year. The BDD facility manager and staff, we prepare that 15-month MR plan with preliminary estimates working with our vendor partners. So this is something, you know, I've been with Brad and staff, and, you know, in January, February, we talk about what projects are coming up. It's a 15-month plan. It's a very long term. Anything that goes out in these plans are an estimate. And what we've run into is that working with the city, you know, if we have an estimate of $65,000, but, you know, 12 months later comes in at 69, causes problems, you know, because it wasn't called out that at that amount. So what this is saying is, as the project schedules firm up and more exact quotes are provided, the BDD facility manager will rebalance the expected cost per project within their delegated authority. Any project quote that increases above the previously authorized 15-month MR plan by a value exceeding the BDD facility manager's authority will be brought back to the board for authorization at the new vote. So it's in those instances where it's a few thousand over, Brad won't have to bring that back to you because it's within his authority to look at projects like that. So that's, that's the new wording that's within this budget beyond previous budgets, you know. And with that, I will stop and stand and take questions from the board. **Chair:** Wonderful. Thank you so much. Questions from the board? Member Green or Commissioner Green? Vice Chair Green. Justin, go ahead. **Vice Chair Green:** Thanks. So, question about electricity. So does our solar project, is that financing for solar or do we have, have we not achieved a, basically, **Speaker:** So this is, we actually have four metered locations, and so this is the P&M bills that are doing from operating that. Now we do get refunds, we do get reduced costs from the solar project. Some of that, if you look back five years, electricity costs were a little bit higher, so these have been effective projects, but we do still have to pay for electricity. PNM issued a rolling rate increase in July of 2025, and that's why we do see there's an increase in projected electricity costs. The electricity budget had been flat for several years, and so we're trying to proactively account for these rate increases that'll be occurring. This may not be a question for you, and maybe for Brad and the facilities folks, but do we have a goal of trying to get net zero, and we're just not there yet? **Vice Chair Green:** Thank you, Vice Chair Green. We're working towards that. Obviously, there are agreements that we have with PNM that are specific to each station that we have. And so obviously, we get the best benefit from solar arrays that were preemptively put in back in the day. As we've progressed through that, we've noticed that we get less and less benefit cost-wise with the solar arrays that we put in later. Is that because they only compensate us a certain amount per megawatt because it is not tied to each? So, let me ask a question because I know that we at Santa Fe County missed our opportunity to become interested parties with PNM acquisition. I bet you we did too. **Speaker:** I believe so. That goes to Nancy. Do we have any, is there any interest in asking as a large user, specifically as a user, is there any way that we can get ourselves into that negotiation to say, "Please treat us better," or something? We have certain goals. **Nancy:** Madam Chair and Commissioner Green, we operate on a unique tariff with PNM, which is called 11B. **Speaker:** Okay. **Nancy:** And so does, I think Rio Rancho is on it, and Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority is on it. Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority is in the settlement discussions. I happen to be getting a lot of those emails because I'm in as local counsel for someone else. So, I've seen that they're in. I don't know what their proposals are, but I can certainly reach out to their lawyer and find out what they are doing and whether it makes sense to get involved. **Speaker:** Okay, because maybe they can advocate on our behalf, because if everybody under 11, whatever 11B is, if we're all treated equally, then that's great. We can support them in that. This is also a question for City of Santa Fe and for Santa Fe County, is that I know that we missed our shot at that, and we're having internal discussions as to if it's too late or what our interests have been aligned with Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority in the past, but I will look into that. And some of 11B, of course, has to do with time of day usage, and we haven't always had that same interest with them, but otherwise, we have had our interests in alignment, so I will check on that. **Speaker:** Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. Thank you, Madam Chair. **Member Schmidt Peterson:** Thank you so much, Member Schmidt Peterson. Just one question, I think maybe more for Bradley or for Nancy. Can you remind me of the overall process here for final approval of this proposal? Because there are steps with the city, both with staff city, and then I think with the council and even with the county commission. Where are we in that process at this point in time? **Nancy:** Thank you, Schmidt Peterson. We will first get you guys to approve, and then each county and city will present it in the kind of a rollup of their budget. I don't think that it breaks it down for BDD specifically. So, the water department for the City of Santa Fe will present their overall budget to City Council, and then that will get approved. But I don't think that's necessarily in detail what we submit. **Speaker:** Okay. Thank you, EP. So, I guess that gets to that part of the question. I was thinking about the operating costs and the salary piece of that. What you're proposing here would be then consistent with what the water division is submitting to Santa Fe. So, that's been already vetted so that there's no possible cost. **Nancy:** Yeah, we already have had conversations with the city specifically because they're our fiscal administrator for, let's say, a COLA or things like that, so that we don't have conflicting budgets that we both present. **Speaker:** Appreciate it. It'll be really interesting to see where we get with all the new staff that are there. This component of the budget will probably be more completely expanded. Thanks. **Nancy:** Absolutely. **Speaker:** Yeah. And I have been in contact with Travis, and so he has this proposed budget, and we've already been talking about, after the board approves it, that he would be ready to present it. I think we had our timing off a little bit the last couple years. So, we'll be proactive this year. Commissioner Hughes. **Commissioner Hughes:** Yeah. Just how much of an increase are you asking the county for? **Nancy:** This, so this is an interesting question. I think I didn't bring last year's report that breaks it down by partner requests. So, I don't know what the percentage is for the county. I can come back to you with that number when we do. **Speaker:** What's the overall percentage? **Nancy:** Oh, 6.6% on the operating side. And then the major repair and replacement funding is percentage-wise, it drops maybe 5%. But the operating fund is much, is much higher. So, it's weighted a lot. **Speaker:** Okay. Yeah, I would like you to come back with that information. **Nancy:** Okay. **Speaker:** Member Hughes probably needs to know as well. **Nancy:** Member Hughes, just for your context, the county is billed off of their projected allocation. So, they tell us how much they're going to produce. And so, some of these increases are based off of the county increasing their use as well. **Speaker:** Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments from the board? I have one regarding the discussion around the MR plan and how high is your authority of what you can approve when there is a difference? **Nancy:** Zero. If we have a line item in the MR&R plan and we come in, we budget for 65,000, and it comes back and it's 65,000, 66,000, we have to bring it back for your authority to sign off on that. And so that's the problem with the way it was written to begin with. Obviously, we're vetting some of these things as we move through the program. This is pretty new. It's only three or four years old. And so, this year, we ran into quite a few of those instances where we would had a budgeted line item in the MR&R. And then we moved on and got the actual invoice for that, or the current quote, I should say, and that quote was an exceedance of that line item. And so, I cannot sign without bringing it back and having your guys's approval. **Speaker:** Nancy, something to add. **Nancy:** Sure. If I can just add to that, the facilities manager's authorized authority is $60,000. It's been $60,000 for a long, long time, and it was kind of in lockstep with the city manager. Now the city manager is at what, 200,000. So, we're going to bring a proposal to you in combination with the city, hopefully, because 60 doesn't do much anymore. We need to get Brad up to 200,000. So, we will be bringing that to you. But I think what Brad was explaining is within the fund itself, he has not had authority. So, we've gone to procurement and said, "Look, he's got monetary authority according to the PMFSA of $60,000." But then they said, "Well, the board hasn't authorized him to use that authority within the MR&R plan." So, that's what we're trying to fix. Now, we don't know if this will fix it or not, but this is our best effort as part of the budget, but we will be bringing something that is really following kind of what the city is doing on authority that we've seen presented and is coming back to you in March on the project manager's authority to also change scope and be able to operate within that monetary authority, hopefully increased by then. **Speaker:** Okay, good. That was my question because I know at the city we've had a conversation around how inefficient that is, and we meet more frequently. So, I imagine that this does slow down projects a lot. And I don't really see a need for it when we've told you to go and do the thing that we would like you to do. Obviously, if there's a budgeting issue, we have to run into that. But glad to hear that that conversation will be coming because **Nancy:** But, Madam Chair, right now, when we say within the proposal today that the facility manager would have authority up to his monetary authority amount, that's 60,000. So then Brad could work within the MR&R fund if there was a change of 5,000 up to 60 on a project, and if the funds are there, then he would have the authority to do that. Hopefully, that will work. **Speaker:** Great. Good. Glad to hear. Now, kind of again, looking at how this reflects what happens at the city. I know that if there is, as long as it's not a budget adjustment request, the city manager still has authority up to 60,000. There has been conversation as to whether or not we should be shifting that. Where does that lie within BDD right now? I mean, obviously within line items and as things that have been budgeted, but in terms of if there's a full budget adjustment request that is needed, how does that process occur, or do we not get to because of whatever reason? **Nancy:** Madam Chair, we've never really ran into that problem where we have to make that kind of adjustment. **Speaker:** Okay. So, we'll see how it plays out. So, hopefully that won't happen, but maybe something for us to keep in the back pocket just in case. Something to think about. So, all right. Thank you. **Nancy:** Yeah. And that's an interesting question because we do use T-bars, you know, the technical one, which is moving money that you've already approved between budget categories, but the bar process, as Brad mentioned, haven't had to use it, but now that we're going to be basically fully staffed, we'll see what happens. You know, those tear potential may not be there. **Speaker:** Yeah. I mean, I don't want us to be caught so off guard that again it causes a major slowdown and that we're not being as efficient as possible. I would like to make sure that the appropriate authorities are there that we feel comfortable with so that that'll be a discussion for us to have. Any other questions, comments at this time before we actually need to go to public comment? I forgot about that piece, but **Member Schmidt Peterson:** Just had one follow-up to your questions there that I mean, one, I like that process so you don't get held up for these things that are over a little bit over cost and so on. One way that maybe potentially to deal with that too is just annually or somewhere in there say, "Here's what I had to do," just report it out. **Nancy:** Thank you, Schmidt Peterson. That's very, you know, it's very intuitive for this board. The problem is is that we don't get it approved through procurement if we didn't have that authority. **Member Schmidt Peterson:** Oh, no, excuse me. That's, that wasn't what I was trying to say. I mean, you have that authority. You go forward and do it, right? And then just periodically you come back and say, you know, "Here's what we had to adjust." **Nancy:** I agree. Thank you. **Speaker:** Yeah. I believe we get quarterly reports of budget adjustments, and it's this lovely long list of a bunch of numbers and line items that are slightly out of context, but **Nancy:** Very meaningful, right? **Speaker:** It's very meaningful. Extremely. Yes, thank you. I realize I missed the public comment portion, although I don't believe there's anybody here from the public, but is there any public comment on this item? Nothing. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Any other questions, comments from the board? And if not, do we have a motion? I will move to approve the proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 BDD operating budget and other fund contributions. Second that. We have a motion and a second. May I please have a roll call? Madam Chair, before you get to the roll call, can I just clarify that the motion does include the facilities manager requested authority within the major repair and replacement fund? I, that's a friendly amendment. I will make that a part of my motion. Thank you. Does the second agree as well? Wonderful. Roll call, please. Aye. Yes. Yes. Big thanks to the item. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. All right, rolling along. Matters from the board. Does anybody have any matters today? No matters. In that case, our next meeting is Thursday, April 2nd, 2026, and we are adjourned at 44.