OBSERVER CORPS REPORT – COUNTY COUNCIL – JUNE 30, 2026

The video of the full meeting may be seen at https://losalamos.granicus.com/player/clip/4820?view_id=2&redirect=true

Water Service Rates, Inclusivity Board, Traffic Cameras and Data Collection, Automated Speed Enforcement Services

The session was attended by Councilors Randall Ryti (Chair), Theresa Cull, Melanee Hand, Suzie Havemann, Ryn Herrmann, Beverly Neal-Clinton, and David Reagor. 

Public Hearing on Water Service Rates

With a 6–1 vote (Councilor Reagor in opposition), Council approved an ordinance to increase water service rates. 

Joann Gentry, Deputy Utility Manager for Finance and Administration, presented the proposed ordinance and explained how the rate changes were derived.

Financial Shortfall in Water Fund

Gentry said the current cash flow from the Water Fund is not sustainable within the ten-year forecast period because water sales have been significantly less than projected. The proposed rate adjustments aim to sustain operations and build cash reserves for future infrastructure investments. Without taking action, DPU would be forced to curtail maintenance and replacement activities, which would ultimately impact system reliability. 

Proposed Water Rate Increases

Water rate schedules consist of a monthly service charge plus a water consumption charge. Gentry described the rationale for the rates proposed for potable and non-potable water use and outlined how these rates vary according to the size of the water meter, season of use and, for potable water, volume of water use during peak season. 

Gentry said the revised water rate schedule proposes two consecutive 8% adjustments for FY 27 and FY 28 for residential, multifamily, commercial, County, and school customers. Other changes to the water rate schedule include:

• a new monthly service charge for non-potable users, 
• a separate schedule of monthly service charges for potable water delivered to dedicated irrigation meters for outdoor watering, snow-making and irrigation, 
• an additional energy charge of $1.50 per 1,000 gallons of potable water sold to the Pajarito Mountain Service Area to account for pumping water 1,800 feet to the 250,000-gal. water storage tank on the mountain, and
• incorporation of debt service and contingency cash reserves into the rates for bulk water deliveries to LANL because of the number of capital loans the County has issued to build a new well and replace water production lines.

Council Discussion and Questions

Councilor Hand asked about non-potable water customers in the County. Public Utilities Manager Philo Shelton replied that the primary use of non-potable water is for irrigation of County parks. He said that the schools are not currently using non-potable water, but that the Middle School may do so in the next couple years to irrigate its fields. The experience is viewed as a proof-of-concept before considering expanding the practice to other schools. 

Councilor Hand pointed out similarities between the proposed increases in gas and water rates. She noted that people are using less of these resources — as encouraged by the County — which makes it hard to justify rate increases to the community. Hand asked how other communities have handled this trend. Gentry noted that DPU routinely compares its water rates with neighboring communities. In general, the proposed rates are lower than those in Santa Fe and Santa Fe County, both of which have year-round tiered water rates; they are higher than those in Española, which has a 5% increase coming in July. 

Shelton added that, in contrast to most other communities, Los Alamos is not growing very quickly and thus is not gaining new utility customers. He pointed out that “while everyone is conserving water, we still have the same number of homes to serve, the same miles of water line, and number of wells to maintain, and that’s the challenge we have with our rates. We have aging infrastructure, and just to maintain a reliable system is more costly than inflation at this point in time.” 

Councilor Reagor challenged the fairness of charging higher residential rates for greater water use while large institutional users receive lower per-unit rates. Shelton responded that residential tiered rates are intended to promote water conservation, satisfy state conservation planning requirements, and recover the higher costs associated with meeting peak seasonal residential demand. 

Councilor Havemann asked what the ramifications would be if the water rate increase was not approved, preventing DPU from building up its cash reserves. Gentry explained that approving the rate increase would strengthen the utility’s financial position, allowing it to meet lender requirements for debt coverage, secure low-cost financing and grants, and avoid delays to planned water infrastructure projects. 

Public Hearing on Creation of an Inclusivity Board

Voting 7–0, Council approved an ordinance to create an Inclusivity Board. The ordinance will be effective in early August 2026. Deputy County Manager Linda Matteson said recruitment for the seven-member board would begin in July.

Traffic Cameras and Data Collection

Police Chief Dino Sgambellone presented information about the use of traffic cameras and License Plate Readers in Los Alamos County. 

License Plate Reader (LPR) Program

LPRs are cameras that take pictures of license plates and vehicles in public areas. A photo of the vehicle, usually from a rear or side angle, allows the police officer to verify the accuracy of the license plate. 

Chief Sgambellone explained that LPRs were introduced to the County in 2023 and are used solely for law enforcement. He said “it’s estimated that over 75% of all crime involves a vehicle, so it’s not surveillance for the sake of surveillance. This data helps us to accelerate investigations, find missing persons, and better protect the communities we serve by locating, identifying vehicles faster and more accurately.” 

Sgambellone emphasized that the camera technology operates under strict privacy and accountability safeguards. The Department’s protocol includes strict access controls, audit logs, and compliance with state laws that limit data sharing and retention. The camera data is stored by the Axon service provider, but the Police Department owns and controls all data collected by the cameras, does not sell it, and grants access to others only for justifiable legal reasons. Every system query is logged with the officer’s identity, case number, reason, and timestamp. 

Questions and Discussion

Councilors asked about data access, misuse prevention, federal data requests, vendor selection, and public records laws. Public comments raised concerns about privacy, transparency, potential misuse, the need for more community input, and quantified costs and benefits of the LPR program.

Councilor Havemann asked whether federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could pressure the County to provide data collected by the camera system, raising concerns that it could be used to target individuals for deportation.

Chief Sgambellone responded that state law prohibits sharing the data with federal agencies in that manner. He said the County controls who has access to the data, and federal agencies do not have automatic access to the system. He added that the only circumstance in which the County might have to provide data would be in response to a valid search warrant, though he said he was not aware of that ever occurring.

Councilor Cull asked whether the camera data was subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA). She gave the example of domestic issues, perhaps someone wanting to know if a particular person was in the area.

County Attorney Alvin Leaphart confirmed that, under the recently adopted state law, automatic LPR data is confidential and exempt from disclosure under IPRA. The law explicitly states that LPR information is not a public record, making it clear that the data cannot be released through an IPRA request.

Councilor Reagor expressed concern that the private vendor could someday sell the LPR data, either because of a change in company ownership or policy, or if the company were hacked.

Chief Sgambellone responded that the County’s contract with Axon prohibits the company from selling the data. He said the County owns the data, and any attempt by the company to sell it would violate the contract.

County Attorney Alvin Leaphart added that the contract remains legally binding even if Axon changes its policies or is acquired by another company. Any successor would still be required to honor the agreement. If the company attempted to sell the data in violation of the contract, the County would pursue legal action, including seeking an injunction and other remedies, to enforce its contractual rights.

Automated Speed Enforcement Services

Council approved authorizing a five-year, $2.1 million contract with Modaxo Traffic Management USA to implement an automated speed enforcement program. The agreement calls for the installation of five speed cameras at fixed locations, all to be operational within six months. Councilors Reagor and Neal-Clinton opposed the contract, citing concerns about its cost and potential privacy implications.

Speed Camera Program

Police Chief Sgambellone said the speed camera program, authorized in 2025 following public hearings and Council approval, is intended to deter speeding and reduce traffic crashes. The cameras photograph only vehicles exceeding the established speed threshold, capturing the vehicle and its license plate. Citations are issued to the registered owner, who may pay the fine, submit an owner’s affidavit, or contest the citation through an in-person, virtual, or paper hearing.

Sgambellone said all data collected by the system is owned and controlled by the County, accessible only to authorized personnel, and subject to audit under departmental and County policies. Camera locations are selected using traffic data, including crash history, traffic volume, pedestrian activity, school zones, citizen complaints, and traffic engineering analysis. He also noted that, under state law, revenue generated by the program may only be used to support traffic safety initiatives.

Questions and Discussion

Councilor Hand asked how automated speed cameras differ from license plate readers (LPRs) and questioned whether they duplicate each other.

Chief Sgambellone explained that while both technologies capture images of license plates, they serve different purposes. Speed cameras use radar or similar technology to detect vehicles exceeding a set speed threshold and issue warnings or citations through an enforcement process that includes due process and hearing options. LPRs, by contrast, do not measure speed or issue citations. Instead, they collect license plate information into a searchable database used for investigative and public safety purposes.

During public comment, concerns were raised about the cost, privacy, and effectiveness of the cameras, particularly in addressing distracted driving. Members of the public also asked why the speed camera program had not been publicized.

Resident Chris Luchini argued that distracted driving—particularly drivers using their cell phones—is a greater cause of serious crashes than speeding. He questioned whether the speed cameras would photograph drivers and suggested enforcement should focus more on distracted driving.

Resident JJ Mortensen said she generally supported speed cameras but expressed concern that drivers can use GPS apps to identify camera locations, slowing down only near the cameras before speeding up again. She advocated for mobile cameras and asked whether the system would photograph drivers as well as license plates, noting that some reckless drivers obscure their license plates to avoid detection.

Chief Sgambellone agreed that distracted driving is a major contributor to crashes, but emphasized that speed significantly increases the severity of collisions. He said the purpose of the speed camera program is to reduce vehicle speeds and thereby lessen crash severity. He acknowledged that some drivers may slow only when approaching known camera locations and said the department would like to use mobile cameras in the future, although current contractual limitations prevent that.

Councilor Ryti questioned the cost of the program. County Manager Anne Laurent answered that the cost is within the budgeted amount and, in addition, will generate revenue to subsidize costs. Sgambellone and Laurent also estimated the cost of traffic officers and compared it to the cost of the speed camera program.

Motion to Approve

Councilor Havemann moved to approve the $2.13 million contract with Modaxo Traffic Management USA for automated speed enforcement services. 

Havemann listed several reasons for supporting the motion:

• The public has long expressed significant concerns about speeding, pedestrian safety, and distracted driving, and the issue has been discussed extensively through work sessions, public hearings, budget meetings, and media coverage.
• The goal of the program is to encourage drivers to slow down and change unsafe driving behavior. Speed cameras are just one tool among many to improve road safety. 
• The intent is not solely a reaction to past fatalities, but also to improve everyday safety and help people feel safer walking, driving, and commuting in the community.

Councilors Cull, Hand, and Herrmann expressed agreement with Councilor Havemann’s comments and supported the motion to approve the contract.

Councilor Reagor opposed the motion, stating he could not support it because he did not believe speed cameras would effectively address the underlying causes of traffic accidents. He argued that crashes involve multiple contributing factors beyond speed and described the program as expensive, suggesting the costs outweighed its benefits.

Councilor Neal-Clinton also opposed the motion. She expressed concern that, even if revenue was not the primary motivation, it still played a role in the speed camera system. She argued that the County should instead rely more on traditional law enforcement, such as increasing speed patrols. She described the program as a “double-edged sword” and said she could not support measures she felt might infringe on personal freedoms.

Councilor Ryti emphasized the need to follow up on any privacy issues that have been raised with data collection. He noted that privacy concerns arise in part because automated systems like LPRs collect large amounts of data, but data collected by speed cameras are much more limited because they only capture photos of vehicles that are speeding.

Ryti acknowledged concerns about people evading enforcement by obscuring or stealing license plates, but said traditional traffic enforcement (the Traffic Unit) cannot catch every violation, especially distracted driving. He referenced the widespread issue of drivers using cell phones and noted that Council had recently approved a hands-free driving ordinance.

Ryti summarized his perspective that improving road safety requires a combination of strategies, including designing roads that naturally reduce speeding, even if that is sometimes unpopular with the public. He supported the motion, but stressed the importance of improving public communication and ensuring continued follow-up on privacy issues and technology use.