Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ramah board questions McKinley County fee on $440,000 Water Trust Board planning grant
Summary
At its Dec. 10 meeting, the Ramah Water & Sanitation District discussed a $440,000 Water Trust Board planning grant and raised concern that McKinley County’s quoted 15% fiscal‑agent fee (about $66,000) could leave the district with inadequate funds for urgent sewer repairs. The district sought clarification from a Council of Governments representative on next steps and procurement options.
Ramah Water & Sanitation District board members discussed a proposed $440,000 Water Trust Board (WTB) planning grant for engineering work on the district’s water supply system and expressed concern that McKinley County told them it would charge roughly 15%—about $66,000—to act as fiscal agent.
Board members said earlier conversations suggested fiscal‑agent fees might be covered or taken from the grant, but the district recently learned that would not be allowed for this planning grant. One board member warned that spending an estimated $66,000 on fiscal‑agent fees could deplete funds the district would otherwise want available for urgent repairs at the sewage treatment plant.
Angelina Grey, a Council of Governments representative who joined the meeting online, told the board the WTB can give districts the option to have the WTB pay the contractor directly and said McKinley County is reviewing how much it may lawfully charge to serve as fiscal agent and whether it can help with procurement. “The WTB gives the district the option for the WTB to pay the contractor directly,” Grey said. She also noted the Capital Outlay deadline the board had been told about: a Friday 3 p.m. submission cutoff for the governor’s or legislature’s capital outlay process.
Board members discussed alternatives for using funds: one possibility flagged during the meeting was applying fiscal‑agent funds toward certifying a previously purchased well (the Tietjen well) rather than paying county administrative fees. The board said an engineer would need to certify the well before it could be connected to the district system and that DePauli Engineering in Gallup had been given information but had not produced a cost or certification timeline.
Financial context was cited in the discussion: the secretary reported roughly $87,000 in the district savings account and about $113,000 in operational checking. Board members said those balances are constrained by the district’s responsibility to maintain the sewer plant and by reserve requirements; they expressed reluctance to spend large sums on administration instead of plant reliability. Angelina Grey told the board WTB planning processes can take around two years and that a planning grant could position the district to seek construction funding later, including Capital Outlay or a governor’s request for water‑service funding.
No formal vote occurred on accepting county fiscal‑agent terms; the board asked the secretary to obtain written details and asked Angelina to seek specifics from county officials about procurement costs and any written offers so the board could make an informed decision at a future meeting.
Next steps the board agreed on included pursuing written proposals from McKinley County about fiscal‑agent costs, exploring whether the WTB could pay contractors directly, determining engineering costs to certify the Tietjen well, and verifying timelines for Capital Outlay applications.
