Minutes of the Regular Quarterly Meeting

October 19, 2016

The Lord’s Ranch, Vado, NM

President Wade Cornelius called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. A guest, Steven Deal, an engineer from the NM Environment Department, had been introduced to board members and others present prior to the meeting’s commencement, so he was invited to speak immediately. The board members were all present except for Rob Campion. Randy Mellor and his wife, Andrea Cecur, were also in attendance.

Deal was assigned to work with the VDRMDWCA by the NMFA, the agency funding our PER. He noted we had received $50,000, and he pointed out that we will be charged gross receipts tax, therefore, we need to determine what that will be on $50,000 and make sure we can pay it out of our total grant amount. He noted we have two options for selecting an engineer: we can put out an RFP or just call up some engineers and ask them to submit proposals. (We are not required to put out a proposal for projects under $60,000.) He cannot participate in the selection process.

He passed out some sample templates, the same one that Morgan and Campion reviewed in preparation for putting out the RFP. He noted that this template meets the state procurement code, and that if we use that, we don’t need to be concerned with it. One of the items covered in the template is how many pages an entity wants in a given RFP. Morgan inquired what is reasonable, to which Mr. Deal indicated that it is really up to us, but an engineer is going to want to err on the high side, while the board or a committee from the board will have to read the proposals, thus, keeping it limited is desirable. Morgan suggested 10 pages and Deal indicated that is probably reasonable. He said we could look at High Valley Farms’ RFP and get an idea what they did.

He also said being as specific as possible in our scope of work is advisable and that we must advertise in one newspaper of general circulation. Morgan indicated that she and Campion had gone over the RFP document and determined that in terms of the numbering system for RFPs, we can decide that ourselves. However, Deal stated that we are required to consider all the categories listed in the RFP when evaluating engineers. We can change the number value or add categories, as long as they all add up to 100.

In response to a question from Morgan regarding what kind of engineers respond to these RFPs, Deal said they would be civil engineers. Morgan noted the board’s interest in having an electrical engineer involved. Deal said that the engineer will be expected to subcontract with an electrical engineer to complete the study. If we have SCADA (an early-warning system regarding how much water is in the tank), that system would require an electrical engineer for the more complicated varieties of such systems.

Regarding liability insurance, Deal told Morgan the engineer is required to carry professional liability insurance for the project, and that $250,000 is adequate for a PER. The amount carried is usually scaled to the project. He said most engineers carry a $5-million-dollar liability policy. He noted that on page two of the template there is language to suggest what one could use in a newspaper ad for the RFP. The following page describes the project and provides a scope of work to be identified using check boxes. He suggested that during a construction phase, one should ask for full-time on-site observation, but that during a study (PER), it probably only needs to be part-time.

Deal said the project description’s text should be as detailed as possible and should take into account that there may be additional phases—planning, design and construction for water system improvement—in the future. In fact, Deal said the most difficult part of filling out the paperwork is determining what you put in the project description and in the check boxes defining the scope of work. He suggested expanding the project description, because this RFP is going to be not just the planning document, it’s also going to be the design of whatever the results of the planning document are, and the “construction process” of the engineer.

He would write seeking proposals for a PER and planning, design, and construction services for water system improvements for Vista del Rey, broad, specific to a given project, but broad enough that you could get additional projects out of it, if you want.

Deal pointed out that while there are still various sources of funding for water system improvements, state funding sources are less accessible than in the past. Colonias funding has dropped by two percent. We could be eligible for Colonias money, however, systems must take 10 percent of it as a loan, so, on a $50,000 grant, that would be $5,000. It may be a good source to pursue, however, because it does not require an environmental clearance. And, Deal noted, you can ask that the loan payments be waived. It’s possible that all the payments could be waived, he said.

The NMED representative also distributed copies of a contract template for the engineer we will select. This document has been in use at least seven years, as long as Deal has worked for the state. He suggested that we send it to him prior to signing as a safeguard. To reiterate, Deal said, we advertise for 10 days, make a selection, send our scoring to him, and before signing a contract with anyone, have him review the contract terms.

Following the session with Deal, a discussion of the need for additional funding ensued. As a state employee, Stafford noted that the potential for additional funding from the state looks grim. He said that we may have to think somewhat into the future and decide what we want as improvements to the system. Deal seemed to suggest that we include in our request for proposals the design and construction phases of needs identified during the PER to avoid having to put out additional RFPs. However, at this point, we don’t know what we need, how much additional funding to ask for, nor from what source. The pros and cons of pursuing Colonias Infrastructure money were discussed, with Cornelius being for it, because oversight requirements are more relaxed than for other funding sources. Mrs. Melvin noted that we shouldn’t pursue Colonias money because part of it is a loan we’d have to pay back. Morgan explained that the first phase of the work, the PER for which we are seeking proposals, is intended to assess the status of the system as it exists in order to determine what we need to have designed and built. She added she feels it’s too early to be considering what funding source we will pursue, but Stafford noted it’s possible we may not get any.

We had mentioned to Deal that we generally approve minutes prior to hearing from guests, however, as we had three sets of minutes to look at, we postponed dealing with the minutes until after he left. He mentioned at the time that other boards do not read the minutes but simply move to approve or not and move on. In light of that, the board agreed to approve the minutes from three previous meetings without the presentation of highlights. Jana Melvin made the motion to approve the minutes, Patrick Stafford seconded it, and it passed unanimously.

Further, Morgan noted, we have a signature page to sign to satisfy DFA that we had, as a board, approved the budget.

Ms. Melvin noted that she didn’t have the balance on our checking account, but noted that we had paid at least a $4,000 check to Harrison’s Well Service. She reported that we ended August with $8,735.70, took in $1,100 during September, and spent $4,462.40, because of our crisis. Our balance on September 30 was $5,373.30. The special assessment we passed was due on Oct. 5. She noted that everyone has paid the assessment, and no one is in arrears. That amount was deposited in October, and additional bills have been paid since then. A special assessment for $1,000 for a well issue in the past has finally been paid off by all members, as well.

At this point, Cornelius asked what had been heard from the water operator. Morgan reported that Torres had told her in a text that he had been having trouble with the chlorinator, but he had fixed it and that everything was fine at the well.

Afterward, the president inquired whether the electrical system had been at fault in our recent crisis. Stafford noted that it seemed to be the wires coming from the power pole and wires feeding into the box behind the chlorinator. Stafford noted that we didn’t run any new wires, we didn’t have to do any trenching, the lightning arrestor that Parmeter recommended he noted we already had. He told us we were “good to go.” Stafford noted we need to inventory the supplies we used and restock them. Mrs. Melvin asked then, whether, in fact, the pump was bad. Stafford indicated that from what he had been told, he thought because of a bad wire, the electrical system began “single-phasing,” which caused the well motor to go bad. He said it’s possible the pump may still be good. He could not remember whether it is motors or pumps they rebuild.

Harrison said the pump was bad, indicating it by playing around with the shaft, suggesting the bearings were bad. Stafford noted that we replaced both the pump and the motor.

Parmeter charged us $341.18. The first electrician, J.C. Electrical charged us for four hours of after-hours work, at a cost of $784.61. He had estimated a cost of more than $3,000 to fix the system. Originally he had said he didn’t know the system well enough to work on it effectively, and he later indicated that this was his specialty and he had done the best he could. He had vowed to send us a liability waiver, which never arrived. Morgan suggested that we use Parmeter in the future, with Current as a backup, having been recommended by a master electrician her husband knows. The Current company is supposed to be well-versed in three-phase systems, and they seemed to have some name recognition in the area.

Mrs. Melvin wanted to know if we were satisfied with Harrison Well Service, and other members indicated they weren’t. A comparison of Harrison and Heil’s charges might be helpful. Currently, Cornelius said, we have paid all the bills related to the crisis and we are not overdrawn. He noted having made a deposit of a refund from the NM Tax and Revenue Department. Of $$$$$.

Stafford noted we could probably pull the well pump ourselves if we had a 25-foot tower. “It’s not rocket science.” Mrs. Melvin noted the liability might be significant, in the event someone was electrocuted, adding that her husband has a tower. The president said that Harrison charged $2,700 for pulling the well, plus $300 labor. Harrison “jumps the gun,” Mrs. Melvin said, taking only a few minutes to decide a pump needs to be pulled.

Cornelius asked if we want Henry Torres to restock. Stafford indicated that the water operator probably best knows what we need; it was mostly fuses, he said, and that $30 per hour is not that much to pay to have him restock. Stafford noted that we had had a pressure pump rebuilt in January, but it has already gone out. He needs to take it back to Turner Motors, to see if they’ll fix it under warranty. Another rebuilt booster pump was put in during the recent crisis.

Morgan reported that she had called the local New Mexico Tax and Revenue Department office to inquire whether we are supposed to pay gross receipts taxes. She was not able to talk to anyone there after several calls because of their looped answering system. Therefore, she called the state Tax and Revenue office in Santa Fe, being put on hold for 30 minutes, 20 minutes and 10 minutes respectively. After deciding to wait the 10 minutes to talk to someone, she was shunted to a voice mailbox. She left a message, but has not gotten a call back. She said someone needs to go to the local office in person to make the inquiry. Cornelius volunteered to go.

DFA requires us to include a signature page on the minutes of the meeting in which we passed the budget. Morgan provided the signature sheet and board members signed it. She was to scan it and email it to DFA.

Jana asked whether Morgan had sent the quarterly report to DFA. She said she had not, but that she had received upcoming budget deadlines. The quarterly report, she said, is due the 31st of the month following a completed quarter. Ms. Melvin knew that, but not about the interim budget for 2017, which is due Dec. 1, and the final, which is due Jan. 31. Morgan noted she had sent Jana a copy of the quarterly report template. We had used an RCAC template on the first budget, because it was thought to be simpler. However, DFA has indicated that they are going to be standardizing and will require that only their templates be used in the future.

Morgan then passed on to Mrs. Melvin a form needed for registering with the State Auditor as a Tier Two company, and additionally, we are to provide them with six years’ financial information. Morgan indicated that if Mrs. Melvin needed help, perhaps the president could appoint someone to help her, as Morgan is somewhat overwhelmed with the RFP and other work. She indicated that she didn’t need assistance. However, whether we have six years’ financial information remains to be seen.

The president asked whether there was anything else that could be done by someone else on the RFP. Morgan noted that there may be, but she was not certain what it might be until she gets into the actual preparation of the RFP. She said that, because of Deal’s comments earlier in the meeting, we need to think about what we want in the other two phases of the work. We don’t have money for those phases yet, however, Morgan noted that knowing the current status of our system would be useful, we have the money for that, and we need to spend it. The president noted that he had been involved in preparing a grant for a school in Santa Theresa. In that case, he was told they need to spend the money, and they need to spend all of it, or the funding agency could only conclude that they didn’t need it. It may sound counter-intuitive, he noted, but they said several times: spend the money. Stafford noted that, if at the end of the year, a state office has money left over, they must be doing something wrong.

Morgan apologized for dumping the “division of labor” on the agenda into Mrs. Melvin’s lap. She noted her concern about the information for the State Auditor, because DFA indicated that our budget will be considered “conditional” until we have registered with the auditor’s office. Mrs. Melvin noted that she would be leaving the next day, but she will do what she can to get the quarterly report in and to complete the registration for the State Auditor.

Next on the agenda is scheduling an election for the annual membership meeting in January. The terms of Mrs. Melvin, treasurer, and Cornelius, president, are expiring. Mrs. Melvin said definitely to look for a replacement for her. The third Wednesday in January, the 18th, will be the date for the election. Mrs. Melvin offered to train whomever may be elected to serve as treasurer. If we cannot find an association member to serve as treasurer, we may have to hire a bookkeeper.

Randy Mellor asked if the board was happy with what he is doing as Stafford’s replacement dragging roads. He said, essentially, he is waiting for rain.

The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.