OBSERVER REPORT – COUNTY COUNCIL – JUNE 9, 2026

The video of the full meeting may be seen at:

https://losalamos.granicus.com/player/clip/4793?view_id=2&redirect=true

Wildlife Assessment Project, Proposed Increase to Gas Service Rates, Proposed County Charter Amendments

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

Wildlife Assessment Project

Council received a kickoff presentation on the Wildlife Assessment Project from representatives of Environmental Solutions and Innovations, Inc. The 12-month project is intended to address the county’s high deer population and its impacts, including increased wildlife-vehicle collisions, property damage, and potential disease risks. 

Wildlife biologist Amanda Rhyne explained that the project team will collect and consolidate existing wildlife data currently dispersed across multiple agencies. The study phase is expected to be completed by the end of September. 

According to Rhyne, information compiled during the study phase will be used to identify and rank key issues based on factors such as public safety, feasibility, and community acceptance. 

Rhyne said the final report will present a range of deer management options, evaluating each strategy’s costs, effectiveness, and implementation challenges, such as actions requiring state agency or partner coordination. 

Proposed Gas Service Rate Changes

With a 3–4 vote, Council chose not to approve increased gas service rates. Councilors Hand, Herrmann, Reagor, and Ryti voted against the new rates. Councilors Cull, Havemann, and Neal-Clinton voted in favor. The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) had recommended adoption of the proposed rates. 

Financial Shortfall in Gas Fund

According to the County staff report, the proposed gas rate increases are driven by financial shortfalls in the Gas Fund. 

The staff report states that “the ten-year forecast for the Gas Utility, presented as part of the FY2027 and FY2028 budget process, included a series of rate increases designed to generate the revenue necessary to sustain operations and rebuild cash reserves needed for future infrastructure investments.”  Those earlier revenue projections have proven overly optimistic, and actual results are falling short of expectations. The rate analysis used during budget development assumed FY2026 sales revenue of approximately $8.4M. However, due to a warmer-than-expected winter and reduced customer usage, FY2026 sales revenue is now projected to be approximately $5.9M, a decrease of about $2.45M from the original estimate. Thus, the Gas Fund reported a net loss of nearly $0.5M in FY2025. For FY2026, the net loss is projected to increase to about $2.36M. 

The staff report warns that, “without taking action, DPU would be forced to curtail maintenance and replacement activities, which would ultimately impact system reliability.”

Proposed Rate Increases

Joann Gentry, Deputy Utility Manager/Finance and Administration, said that the proposed rate adjustments are intended to restore the Gas Fund to a sustainable level. 

The proposed rate increases would have spanned two consecutive years:

• Residential, multifamily, and commercial customers: 29% in FY2027 and 17% in FY2028
• County and Schools customers: 30% in FY2027 and 19% in FY2028

Gentry presented a slide showing the effect of the increases on a typical residential gas bill. Averaged over a year, the estimates are based on using 70 therms/month at a cost of gas of $0.42/therm. In this case, the average monthly bill would be about $67 in FY2026, rising to $79 in FY2027 and $87 in FY2028. In winter months, assuming 126 therms, the monthly residential bill would be about $110 in FY2026, $129 in FY2027, and $143 in FY2028. 

Council Discussion

Councilor Cull expressed concern that as customers reduce gas consumption—which is a key goal of the County’s Climate Action Plan—many may feel penalized because fixed gas charges continue to increase even though their usage declines. 

Public Utilities Director Philo Shelton replied that operating costs do not decline proportionally as gas consumption decreases because many regulatory requirements must be met regardless of system usage levels. 

Councilor Cull and Neal-Clinton asked what the consequences would be if the rate increases were not approved. 

Shelton replied that the Gas Fund would remain in deficit, DPU would have to cancel any capital improvements and, if that continued much longer, DPU could end up in violation with the Public Regulatory Commission for not completing required inspections. He said that typical penalties for noncompliance in the industry could be $5,000/day. 

Councilor Reagor was dissatisfied with the explanation about how the gas rate needed to be increased even though the cost of gas is going down. He said, “When gas was expensive, we had to raise rates and then, when gas is going down, we still have to raise rates. So, I’m thinking there’s probably a better explanation of all of this, and we certainly should not approve it unless it’s been explained more completely.”

Councilor Ryti noted that he has had to vote on over nine utility increases since he has been on Council. He said, “I’ve been voting on rate increases more than once a year on average, so I don’t think it’s inappropriate for Council to be looking at this more.” 

What’s Next?

After the proposed rate increase failed to receive approval, Deputy County Attorney Katie Thwaites explained that the Council could not independently propose a new rate. Any revised rate proposal would first need to be recommended by the BPU. 

Thwaites added that, at a future meeting, the Council could provide direction to the BPU regarding the gas rate and request that it consider a different proposal. 

County Charter Amendments

Council voted 5–2 (Councilors Neal-Clinton and Reagor in opposition) to direct the County Manager to draft an ordinance to amend the County Charter so that no more than a simple majority of the voting members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Public Utilities, or Personnel Board may be members of the same political party. 

How Does the Proposed Change Differ from the Current County Charter?

The County Charter currently reads that “No more than a simple majority of the voting members of any standing board or commission shall be members of the same political party.” This restriction applies to all of the standing boards and commissions. 

The proposed ordinance would keep the requirement only for those three boards and commissions whose decisions are not strictly advisory. All other boards and commissions would no longer have party-balance requirements. 

Council Discussion

Councilors were divided on the proposal. 

Supporters argued that:

• Qualifications should be the primary consideration, not party affiliation. 
• Some boards struggle to fill vacancies, and party-balance requirements can make recruitment harder. 
• Most boards are advisory only, with final decisions made by the Council. 
• There is little evidence that partisan politics significantly affects the work of most boards and commissions. 
• Removing the requirement could broaden the pool of applicants and reduce vacancies. 

Opponents argued that:

• Political affiliation can serve as a rough indicator of differing viewpoints and perspectives. 
• Without safeguards, future Councils could appoint members who largely share the same political outlook. 
• Diverse political representation can help prevent boards from becoming ideologically homogeneous. 
• Boards and commissions often serve as a pipeline for future community leadership, so maintaining balance there may contribute to broader political diversity in local government. 
• Charter provisions should help guard against potential abuses by future officeholders, not just address current circumstances. 

Councilor Ryti said that he understood the merit in eliminating the requirement. He noted that Council had heard feedback from some boards that they do not find it particularly relevant, while others viewed it as a useful proxy for ensuring a broader range of perspectives. He concluded that, “I think what you want to have is people with different perspectives. And does having no more than a majority of a party help with that?”  He supports recruiting people who represent lots of different perspectives, but said, “there’s no way to enforce that in the charter or anywhere else.”

What’s Next?

A public hearing on the proposed ordinance will provide an additional opportunity for public input and for Council discussion and deliberation. If the ordinance is adopted by the Council, then the proposed change will be presented to the voters for adoption or rejection on the ballot for the 2026 General Election (November 3).