Truth or Consequences City Commission ignores public opposition to piecemeal approach to repairing water system and imposes rate increase

by Kathleen Sloan | February 27, 2020
7 min read
​Water rates will go up and a $9.4-million project will go forward, the Truth or Consequences City Commission comfortably following City Manager Morris Madrid’s lead, despite public opposition. 

Points raised by the public for delaying the project for more planning and until a new board is seated were ignored. 

The base rate for the water utility will go to $15.50 a month on April 1. The current $8.15 base rate doesn’t include any water, but the new base rate includes 2,000 gallons. 

Customers will pay $2.71 for each 1,000 gallons they consume over the 2,000 gallons up to 7,000 gallons, up from $1.75. At higher tiers the 1,000 gallon rate increases, from $3.07 to $3.45 to $3.88 and $4.33. 

Madrid and City Attorney Jay Rubin claimed “three public hearings” had been held before the Feb. 26 public hearing.

It is unfair to characterize the three town halls as public hearings. They were not in front of elected officials and no City staff reported the public input to the City Commission, making them empty exercises. The Sierra County Sun made a records request for all documents relaying public input to the City Commission, which came back as “no such documents exist.”  

Madrid said “rate experts, engineers and City staff were available to answer questions” during the town halls, but the vast majority of the questions went unanswered, were ignored or were said to be off-point. 

For example, Ron Fenn, who is running for City Commission Seat 5, tried to question whether water meters would be replaced by smart meters. Madrid said it “wasn’t being contemplated,” and cut his comments short.

However, at the Feb. 24 Public Utility Advisory Board meeting and the Feb. 26 City Commission meeting, Madrid informed the boards water meters will be replaced, avoiding the term “smart meter,” leaving the public to wonder. 

The community has shown it is virulently opposed to smart meters due to the spiking magnetic radiation they give off and the need to spend money on fixing the infrastructure. At the last City Commission meeting, the board refused to hold a special election on installing smart meters, despite being presented with a certified petition and citizens’ initiative ordinance banning smart meters for 10 years. 

At the Feb. 26 meeting, Madrid misled the City Commission about public input at the town halls, claiming an amendment to the ordinance’s rate structure was made to address residents’ “concerns.”

He said the public was concerned over the “base rate being too high” and that “higher-consumption users should pay more” and that the rates should encourage conservation of water. The public said nothing about those issues. 

Madrid was truthful in stating the public was concerned about water-fee revenue being transferred into the general fund instead of back into the utility. Instead of stopping the transfers, Madrid said they will “gradually go to zero in a five-year period.” 

Six residents spoke during the only public hearing, Feb. 26. All were in opposition to the ordinance. Their concerns were given short shrift by Madrid and the City Commission in subsequent discussion before the vote on the rate hike. 

Jack Noel said he opposed the ordinance, although he agreed a rate increase is needed, because it was being “rushed through before the election,” and “the city manager has an agenda to get this through.” He pointed out the water-rate study numbers and the engineering study numbers have been disputed and left unsettled. 

“We’re still arguing whether there is a 47 percent versus a 12 percent leakage” in the water pipes, Noel said. 

Noel revealed Madrid’s agenda includes smart meters. Noel spoke with one of the bidders on the electric smart-meter project, “who said it was clear the City staff wanted smart meters” not only for the electric customers, but also for the water customers, “which compounds the problem you’ve enraged this community with.” 

“We need to stand back and wait for the new commission and for a long-term 20-to-30 year plan,” Noel said. 

Sophia Peron, who is running for City Commission Seat 4, said the $9.4-million water project and water-rate ordinance needed to be delayed not only until the election is over, but also “until after the census.” She believes the population will have decreased much lower than 6,000 people and the few may not be able to pay for the project through rate increases. 

“Stop pulling these power moves,” Peron said. “We have no money. We spent $39 million on the hospital.” 

Rick Dumiak noted how uncertain the numbers are and how little the project has been vetted. “What is the $9.4 million going to repair,” he asked, alluding to Wilson & Company’s revelation on February 22 that only 11,000, not 22,000 linear feet of pipe will be replaced for $6 million. 

The rate study assumes each customer will use about 6,000 gallons a month, Dumiak said, which Fenn pointed out is about three times the national average. If the engineering is “skewed” toward delivering that volume of water, “how important is that?” he asked. 

“And what guarantee is there the money will not be put in the general fund again,” Dumiak asked. 

He too wanted to wait for a new commission and more study. 

Ariel Dougherty said the fact water rates haven’t been raised for 13 years showed “negligence on the part of commissioners” and that they “weren’t paying attention.” 

They are considering a rate structure different from the published ordinance, Dougherty said, “therefore it’s confusing to the public what is being approved.” 

Many people brought up the inequity of residents paying as much as businesses during the town halls. Downtown business owners will mostly benefit from the project, since it will replace pipes downtown. “There is no commercial rate in the ordinance,” Dougherty said, “which is a disservice to the community. The grant and loan will help the downtown.” 

“And there is a serious lack of listening to citizens,” Dougherty said. “The process is backward. There should be public discussion and then the ordinance should be written based on public discussion.” 

Audon Trujillo said the water project “was not contemplated in the comprehensive plan,” which should have been updated in October 2019, but wasn’t. He noted neither water nor parks were in the plan, yet the city is taking on big projects in both departments. 

Ron Fenn said he opposed the ordinance because rate increases can’t cover the massive infrastructure repair cost. The 11,000 linear feet are “2.8 percent of the water system lines,” which will cost $6 million, while $3 million will fix the Cook Street chlorination system and tank. Yet rates are doubling for this small portion, he said. 

He recommended doing a master plan and “then looking at funding from $200 to $300 million in water-line replacement over 35 years.” Fenn said that estimate assumed 2.8 percent of water-line replacement a year, a 3-percent inflation rate on construction costs and the city receiving 40 percent in grants.  

“We can’t do this with water rates,” Fenn said. 

During the City Commission’s discussion, City Commissioner George Szigeti praised the PUAB for coming up with “an astute amendment” to the published ordinance, referring to the $15.50 base rate and other rate increases.  

This was misplaced praise and demonstrated how little informed the City Commission was by Madrid. Madrid and Karl Pennock sprung the amendment on the PUAB during the Feb. 24 meeting, with two members resisting taking action on it for that reason.  

Pennock, employed by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, is a subcontractor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is giving the city the $9.4-million grant/loan. The RCAC’s job is to make sure the City can pay back the loan, as well as maintain the water utility, so the federal government isn’t wasting its money.

Szigeti and Madrid’s response to residents’ concerns over lack of long-term planning was to recite platitudes. “This is just a step we need to take,” Szigeti said. Madrid urged the City Commission not to “kick the can down the road.” 

Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Clark also praised the PUAB for its “brilliant recommendation.” 

She addressed two of Dougherty’s points to a small degree. Clark asked Water and Sewer Department Director Jesse Cole if the water lines downtown feed into residential lines on side streets and Cole said they did, implying the project will not just benefit downtown business owners. 

Clark also got Madrid to state subsequent rate increases, starting July 2021, will not be 3 percent, but will mirror the Consumer Price Index. Dougherty pointed out 40 percent of town residents live on Social Security, which is tied to the CPI. 

City Commissioner Rolph Hechler asserted the rate hike and project should be decided by the current board because it has more experience than the incoming board. 

Mayor Sandra Whitehead seemed to miss the public’s and board’s opposition altogether, proclaiming “The City Commission and community will continue to work together.” 

The City Commission then voted on the rate increase, passing it unanimously. 

TAGS: | |
author
Kathleen Sloan is the Sun’s founder and chief reporter. She can be reached at kathleen.sloan@gmail.com or 575-297-4146.
Share this:
HAVE YOU SEEN?

Understanding New Mexico's proposed new social studies standards for K-12 students

“The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
—National Council for the Social Studies 

Reader Michael L. Hayes of Las Cruces commented: What impresses me is that both the proposed standards and some of the criticisms of them are equally grotesque. I make this bold statement on the basis of my experience as a peripatetic high school and college English teacher for 45 years in many states with many students differing in race, religion, gender and socioeconomic background, and as a civic activist (PTA) in public education (My career, however, was as an independent consultant mainly in defense, energy and the environment.)

The proposed social studies standards are conceptually and instructionally flawed. For starters, a “performance standard” is not a standard at all; it is a task. Asking someone to explain something is not unlike asking someone to water the lawn. Nothing measures the performance, but without a measure, there is no standard. The teacher’s subjective judgment will be all that matters, and almost anything will count as satisfying a “performance standard,” even just trying. Students will be left to wonder “what is on the teacher’s mind?” or “have I sucked up enough.”

Four other quick criticisms of the performance standards. One, they are nearly unintelligible because they are written in jargon. PED’s use of jargon in a document intended for the public is worrisome. Bureaucrats often use jargon to confuse or conceal something uninformed, wrong or unworthy. As a result, most parents, some school board members and more than a few teachers do not understand them.

Two, the performance standards are so vague that they fail to define the education which teachers are supposed to teach, students are supposed to learn, and parents are supposed to understand. PED does not define words like “explain” or “describe” so that teachers can apply “standards” consistently and fairly. The standards do not indicate what teachers are supposed to know in order to teach or specify what students are supposed to learn. Supervisors cannot know whether teachers are teaching social studies well or poorly. The standards are so vague that the public, especially parents or guardians, cannot know the content of public education.

Three, many performance standards are simply unrealistic, especially at grade level. Under “Ethnic, Cultural and Identity Performance Standards”; then under “Diversity and Identity”; then under “Kindergarten,” one such standard is: “Identify how their family does things both the same as and different from how other people do things.” Do six-year-olds know how other people do things? Do they know whether these things are relevant to diversity and identity? Or another standard: “Describe their family history, culture, and past to current contributions of people in their main identity groups.” (A proficient writer would have hyphenated the compound adjective to avoid confusing the reader.) Do six-year-olds know so much about these things in relation to their “identity group”? Since teachers obviously do not teach them about these other people and have not taught them about these groups, why are these and similar items in the curriculum; or do teachers assign them to go home and collect this information?

Point four follows from “three”; some information relevant to some performance measures requires a disclosure of personal or family matters. The younger the students, the easier it is for teachers to invade their privacy and not only their privacy, but also the privacy of their parents or guardians, or neighbors, who may never be aware of these disclosures or not become aware of them until afterward. PED has no right to design a curriculum which requires teachers to ask students for information about themselves, parents or guardians, or neighbors, or puts teachers on the spot if the disclosures reveal criminal conduct. (Bill says Jeff’s father plays games in bed with his daughter. Lila says Angelo’s mother gives herself shots in the arm.) Since teacher-student communications have no legal protection to ensure privacy, those disclosures may become public accidentally or deliberately. The effect of these proposal standards is to turn New Mexico schools and teachers into investigative agents of the state and students into little informants or spies.

This PED proposal for social studies standards is a travesty of education despite its appeals to purportedly enlightened principles. It constitutes a clear and present danger to individual liberty and civil liberties. It should be repudiated; its development, investigated; its PED perpetrators, dismissed. No state curriculum should encourage or require the disclosure of private personal information.

I am equally outraged by the comments of some of T or C’s school board members: Christine LaFont and Julianne Stroup, two white Christian women, who belong to one of the larger minorities in America and assume white and Christian privileges. In different terms but for essentially the same reason, both oppose an education which includes lessons about historical events and trends, and social movements and developments, of other minorities. They object to the proposal for the new social studies standards because of its emphasis on individual and group identities not white or Christian. I am not going to reply with specific objections; they are too numerous and too pointed.

Ms. LaFont urges: “It’s better to address what’s similar with all Americans. It’s not good to differentiate.” Ms. Stroup adds: “Our country is not a racist country. We have to teach to respect each other. We have civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination. We need to teach civics, love and respect. We need to teach how to be color blind.”

Their desires for unity and homogeneity, and for mutual respect, are a contradiction and an impossibility. Aside from a shared citizenship, which implies acceptance of the Constitution, the rule of law and equality under the law, little else defines Americans. We are additionally defined by our race, religion, national origin, etc. So mutual respect requires individuals to respect others different from themselves. Disrespect desires blacks, Jews or Palestinians to assimilate or to suppress or conceal racial, religious or national origin aspects of their identity. The only people who want erasure of nonwhite, non-Christian, non-American origin aspects of identity are bigots. Ms. LaFont and Ms. Stroud want standards which, by stressing similarities and eliding differences, desire the erasure of such aspects. What they want will result in a social studies curriculum that enables white, Christian, native-born children to grow up to be bigots and all others to be their victims. This would be the academic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

H.E.L.P.

This postmortem of a case involving a 75-year-old women who went missing from her home in Hillsboro last September sheds light on the bounds of law enforcement’s capacity to respond, especially in large rural jurisdictions such as Sierra County, and underscores the critical role the public, as well as concerned family and friends, can play in assisting a missing person’s search.

Reader Jane Debrott of Hillsboro commented: Thank you for your article on the tragic loss of Betsey. I am a resident of Hillsboro, a friend of Rick and Betsey, and a member of H.E.L.P. The thing that most distresses me now, is the emphasis on Rick’s mis-naming of the color of their car. I fear that this fact will cause Rick to feel that if he had only gotten the facts right, Betsey may have been rescued before it was too late. The incident was a series of unavoidable events, out of everyone’s control, and we will never know what place the correct color of her car may have had in the outcome. It breaks my heart to think that Rick has had one more thing added to his “what ifs” concerning this incident.

Diana Tittle responded: Dear Jane, the Sun undertook this investigation at the request of a Hillsboro resident concerned about the town’s inability to mount a prompt, coordinated response to the disappearance of a neighbor. From the beginning, I shared your concern about how our findings might affect Betsy’s family and friends. After I completed my research and began writing, I weighed each detail I eventually chose to include against my desire to cause no pain and the public’s right to know about the strengths and limitations of law enforcement’s response and the public’s need to know about how to be of meaningful assistance.

There was information I withheld about the state police investigation and the recovery. But I decided to include the issue of the car’s color because the individuals who spotted Betsy’s car emphasized how its color had been key to their identification of it as the vehicle described in Betsy’s Silver Alert. Because the misinformation was corrected within a couple of hours, I also included in this story the following editorial comment meant to put the error in perspective: “The fact that law enforcement throughout the state was on the lookout in the crucial early hours after Betsy’s disappearance for an elderly woman driving a “light blue” instead of a “silver” Accord would, in retrospect, likely not have changed the outcome of the search” [emphasis added].

I would also point to the story’s overarching conclusion about the inadvisability of assigning blame for what happened: “In this case, a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances, many of them beyond human control, hindered the search that it would fall to Hamilton’s department to lead.”

It is my hope that any pain caused by my reporting will eventually be outweighed by its contribution to a better community understanding of what it will take in the future to mount a successful missing person’s search in rural Sierra County.

Scroll to Top