Los Alamos BPU affirms ordinance adding $700,000 SRF loan for nonpotable booster rehab and awards $1.58M contract

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — The Los Alamos County Board of Public Utilities voted 4-0 on May 7 to affirm Ordinance No. 743, authorizing an amendment to an existing state loan/subsidy agreement to add $700,000 in funding from the New Mexico Environmental Clean Water State Revolving Loan Program for the Bio Non‑Potable Booster Rehabilitation Project, and to award the construction contract and associated budget revision for the project.

The ordinance affirmation will be forwarded to Los Alamos County Council for introduction and adoption. The board also approved awarding the construction contract for the booster rehabilitation project with a base award of $1,400,035 and a contingency allowance of $180,000, for a total project amount of $1,580,035 plus New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax. The board voted to recommend budget revision 2025‑503 to recognize the project funding and to forward that revision to council for approval.

The project will add an isolation valve in the yard to allow the county to isolate the high‑pressure effluent pipeline that serves a nearby ball field, replace an aging chlorination unit inside the booster building, and upgrade mechanical and electrical systems including transformers. James Martinez, a county staff member subbing for James Allard, told the board the additional $700,000 would be provided as loan funding only. "The additional 700 was gonna be loan, strictly loan, so there's no grant portion to this," Martinez said.

Martinez and other staff said those items were included in the design and were offered as bid alternates; the board chose to accept bid alternates that include the isolation gate valve and the replacement chlorination unit. A third bid alternate for upgraded lightning protection was not selected. During discussion a staff speaker estimated a lightning protection upgrade cost and said the existing protection meets older standards but that standards have been upgraded since 1990.

Board members asked about the original loan/grant split in the existing agreement and staff corrected an earlier verbal mistake in the meeting: the staff report indicates the original award consisted of $200,000 in grant funding and $800,000 in a low‑interest loan. With the approved $700,000 loan amendment, staff said the loan portion would increase accordingly and the total award package would be recorded in the amendment forwarded to council.

There were no public comments during the hearing. The motions to affirm the ordinance and to award the contract and budget revision carried on roll calls that showed Member Hollingsworth, Member Heffner, Member Stromberg and Chair Gibson voting yes, 4‑0.

County staff said the awarded bid is the low bidder and came in within the engineer's estimate; they also said a contingency was included to cover unforeseen conditions. Staff told the board they had asked the state for additional funding when the base bid came in slightly over budget and received notice of the added $700,000 loan.

The board forwarded the ordinance amendment, the contract award, and the budget revision to County Council for consideration and adoption. Council will receive the ordinance and the recommended budget change as part of its upcoming agenda; staff did not provide a specific council hearing date during the BPU meeting.