[Editor's Note: Because of the length of the work session on Feb. 23, 2021, the coverage has been broken into a multi-part series of articles. This is the final article, part 4. It begins with the last presentation on the NM CAP Entity.]
By Mary Alice Murphy
The last presentation at the Grant County Commission second work session of the month on Feb. 23, 2021 was presented by New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez.
He called from his car. "I'm on the road. I want to give you a brief update on the CAP Entity. We are discussing additional amendments to the joint-powers agreement with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. It would remove a lot of the New Mexico Unit language, [which was put into place, originally at the request of the ISC.] Our actions might be in vain, because of a bill that Rep. Matthew McQueen put forward that has already passed two House committees and is slated to go to the House Floor. The bill would send the New Mexico Unit Fund money to the Water Trust Board. The speaker of the House has requested to remove all funding from the CAP Entity."
"I certainly don't disagree with using the funding for non-unit alternatives," Gutierrez continued. "I would like to make some clarification statements on the succession of the entity from the Arizona Water Settlements act language of a Southwest New Mexico Study Group. The action was actually taken by the Grant County Commission to create the entity. Commissioner Henry Torres provided a lot of the communications between Senators (Pete) Domenici and (Jeff) Bingaman on creating the first group. We have proven the succession from the original group through the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission to the New Mexico CAP Entity. While some members of the House of Representatives don't agree with the succession, we feel that we are the successor. Many of the members have been participating in the operations since the very beginning group. The New Mexico CAP Entity at this point is working as written in the AWSA, as the consulting group to the ISC on expenditures from the New Mexico Unit Fund. I wanted to clarify the accusations put on the CAP Entity in hearings and such. It's been 15 years and we've spent $15 million. Those aren't necessarily true. The Interstate Stream Commission didn't even approve a unit until November 2014, 30 days prior to the deadline, almost the last day of the last hour. The New Mexico CAP Entity, formed in 2015, after the handoff from the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission and didn't have a budget until the 2016 fiscal year. The claim that the CAP Entity has spent all this money and time isn't true.
"The ISC, under several previous administrations spent millions of dollars on studies and came up with a $700 million to $1 billion project. And then hired the original contractor to design a New Mexico Unit. In addition, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission chose to be a joint lead in the NEPA process. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was charged with providing the NEPA and the draft EIS. The New Mexico CAP Entity could have done all of the above. They could have hired their own contractor to design, their own engineer and a NEPA contractor, who could have done it at a substantially cheaper price. The NEPA process cost $4 million plus and a big portion of that was to get the Bureau of Reclamation to do the work. If the entity had hired the contractor, Reclamation would have only charged for the due process of the EIS (environmental impact statement). I wanted to clarify because our membership is made up of county commissioners, municipalities, soil and water conservation districts and irrigation associations, so we have a huge representation from the region. People have been giving every one of these agencies a black eye to the point where they say everything 'you've done to this point has been a farce and you knew going in that it couldn't be done,' but we do still have representation from the southwest region. I have concerns about losing that representation and the defunding of the organization. Of course, they went on for years without funding, with Grant County providing a secretary, an attorney and, as the county planning director, I was chair of the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission, and without an executive director. My biggest fear is the loss of regional representation. I'm not worried about my position. In fact, I am eligible to retire any day, and potentially that could be the best thing for me. But I think loss of that representation is really huge. Sending the Unit Fund to the Water Trust Board would create some obstacles for smaller entities that don't have funding for the application process and project administration. We already have entities in the region that have received New Mexico Unit Fund moneys, but haven't been able to finish them, largely due to not having the capacity to do project administration. So that is my largest fear.
"Rep. McQueen said they could try to communicate with the Water Trust Board to make it a little bit easier for small entities to apply," Gutierrez continued. "However, the Water Trust Board is made up of appointees from various state agencies and from the governor's office. A change of administration could potentially change the way the Water Trust Board does business, and the board could present obstacles, bureaucratic and political obstacles. I'm all for getting projects locally in this region, and the Water Trust Board may not be. Our opponents have often said they want more representation on the CAP Entity. This bill takes away all local representation. Even if we got one representative on the Water Trust Board, it would not be enough.
"My last concern is related to something Commissioner (Alicia) Edwards brought up last year," he said. "If you remove the regional representation, if you remove the New Mexico CAP Entity and you remove the successor to the Southwest New Mexico Study Group, you potentially open the door to corporate dollars to develop the AWSA water. While the CAP Entity could do contracting related to the exchange from Arizona, the AWSA is clear on contracting with the user for AWSA water. While some may think the best thing is to remove regional representation with state representation, it doesn't necessarily cover all the bases related to the Arizona Water Settlements Act. While the New Mexico Unit Fund is controlled by the legislature, the development of AWSA water is not. I think there is an issue. I think it was a concern of Commissioner Edwards and it should be a concern not only to Commissioner Edwards but to the commission as a whole, as well as the other entities in the region. Commissioner Salas asked me a question about developing water in the Mimbres Basin. We have already analyzed and discussed with Freeport McMoRan about using their infrastructure from Bill Evans to do exactly that. We've already had applications from corporate entities. Lion's Gate, out of California, with Chinese investors applied in our first round of applications. I think as valuable as water is in the Southwest, there should be a great concern about development of AWSA water. We already see where Freeport-McMoRan in the old days, and they certainly support the community now, bought up water rights in the old days. I provided you a resolution to the commission designating the New Mexico CAP Entity as the successor to the Southwest Water Study Group, which, of course, the House of Representatives doesn't agree with. However, we feel that we are the true successor and I have provided documentation. We also feel that the Water Trust Board should not replace the Southwest Water Study Group as the consulting agency with the Interstate Stream Commission, and it kind of goes back to our JPA with the ISC and presentation by the ISC director. We're trying to figure out how the regional agency can work with the ISC not only on prioritizing projects, but also assisting entities that don't have the capacity to go through the application process and other things I spoke about. We have also spoken with the Executive Director of the Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments Priscilla Lucero about potentially funding local projects. While she is happy about that, she did voice some concern about not having the resources to apply and administer projects for smaller entities. I sent you the resolution the New Mexico CAP Entity passed. I would like to see the commission oppose House Bill 200, if solely on the reason that Grant County would be removed from the process of prioritizing funding from the New Mexico Unit Fund."
District 4 Commissioner Billy Billings said he wanted to reiterate and clarify some things Mr. Gutierrez said. "Anthony, I think you can verify that the director of the ISC assured us that the ISC is working on guidelines for projects that they plan to present to the New Mexico CAP Entity soon. Did he say March or maybe April 1, on how the CAP Entity can assist the ISC in the planning, evaluation, prioritization and aid to development of potential shovel-ready projects to meet water supply demands in the southwest planning region of New Mexico that would encourage quality of life and economic development. So, they are working on the guidelines and will have them back to the entity in early April. Anthony, can you confirm that?"
Guitierrez said that was correct. "They are pretty busy right now during the session. The director said he felt they could have a draft to us in the second or third week of March or soon after that."
Billings said he has serious concerns about the Water Trust Board. "Not because I have firsthand knowledge, but I've talked to people from here. Probably the one with the reason who made the strongest case against the Water Trust Board was Deming City Manager Aaron Sera, who is also chair of the Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments. He's the representative from Deming on the CAP Entity. He talked about the scenarios where the city of Deming and some other entities tried to apply to the Water Trust Board and the nightmare that it was. It's too much of a political body. The city of Deming ran into a lot of requirements that cost them $150,000 to get some funding, and the process that should have taken a few months took years. I share Mr. Gutierrez's concerns about whether the Water Trust Board is the best avenue for local water projects funding, especially the smaller entities jumping through all the hoops. I think of Hanover and the water issues it has had. Even for the county, or Deming or Silver City, the Water Trust Board is an entity that creates a lot of obstacles."
District 1 Commissioner and Chair Chris Ponce said his major concern and the concern he gets from his constitutents is "we are looking at Hurley and Hanover. I know the town of Silver City would like to replace some pumps. Has the CAP Entity discussed releasing some of that money to Hurley and Hanover? Maybe I'm on a different page, but has it? We have these places that need some of this money to provide water to their communities."
Gutierrez said he has visited with the Silver City Manager and Mayor Stevens from Hurley. It's a valid concern. "I know it's continually brought up that the sole purpose of the CAP Entity is to develop AWSA water and they don't care about anything else. However, I'm going to disagree with that. Most of the same members now on the CAP Entity were on the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission when we prioritized projects. The board prioritized the projects that were related to municipal conservation, to the Hurley project, prior to a New Mexico Unit at that time. Our previous JPA had language in it directed toward a New Mexico Unit. That language was proposed by the ISC, which said we have to put everything we have toward a unit. In my conversations with Mayor Stevens and the managers of Silver City and Deming, they said they would like to see a more organized planning process and funding mechanism in our area to be able to prioritize projects you're talking about. I do have some concerns about the fact there are water issues, not just infrastructure, but water concerns. I've talked to farmers south of Deming, where they are continuing to lose about three feet of aquifer storage a year. Some of them have dipped into the extremely deep aquifer, because the shallow aquifer is not able to provide what they need. What we've seen locally in Hanover and Fierro is also happening in Santa Clara, where they've had issues with their well. Santa Clara wanted to link to the Arenas Valley water system. I did that application when I was planning director. Water issues have been a long time coming. Silver City has had discussions with Freeport on recharge of the Franks wellfield. Hurley thought they had a project, that they received more than $2 million from the New Mexico Unit Fund for, but now we're seeing that the water is not necessarily there. So, a larger planning process needs to be done locally. I don't think sending the New Mexico Water Unit Fund to the Water Trust Board is the answer. I've done an application myself to the Water Trust Board in the Gila area. Because of the fires, there was concern about taking out one of the county roads in the system, we actually went through the Water Trust Board, by the time we got our engineers approved, we had almost already finished the project, because it had to be done. We got some emergency permits, and the money from the Water Trust Board was almost a year behind. I appreciate your comments about people in the region. Mayor Stevens said if we can get projects prioritized, it would be very beneficial to everyone."
Billings asked how much the CAP Entity has already spent on local projects.
"It is not CAP Entity money," Gutierrez said. "The projects were evaluated by the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission and funded by the Interstate Stream Commission, not the CAP Entity, which can't fund such projects. Initially, it was $9.1 million, and I think they've spent a little over $6 million to this point."
District 5 Commissioner Harry Browne noted that the bill, as he understands it, does not send money to the Water Trust Board. "Your comments to that effect are creating the very confusion you are trying to combat. The money stays with the Interstate Stream Commission. This legislation says the Water Trust Board will be the entity that the ISC has to consult with before spending that money. The ISC can consult with anybody it wants to."
Gutierrez said the Department of Finance and Administration would require the Water Trust Board to go through their analysis. "I think they are not going to do it for free. The ISC would have to pay the DFA for the analysis. The Water Trust Board is made up of a lot of state agencies that will do analyses. The ISC would do its analysis. So, there are a lot of analyses that would have to be done for a single project to move forward. HB 200 says the recommendation would come through the Water Trust Board. That language replaces the regional entities that would supply the consultation and recommendation. If you remove the operating funding, how do they expect the board members to make their recommendation?"
Browne asked for clarification. "When you talk about defunding the operations funding, you're talking about the part that Speaker Egolf wants to defund the CAP Entity. And the unit fund money doesn't go to the Water Trust Board."
Gutierrez agreed that he misspoke. "To me, the discussion and hearings on the House side, they continuously said replacement of the regional board with the Water Trust Board. That's where the major concern is."
Browne said the defunding is not likely to happen. The sponsor of the bill deferred that. "It's definitely not part of the bill right now. I want to say a couple of things about the Water Trust Board. Of course, it's a bureaucracy because that's what we require to spend government funds correctly. The Water Trust Board receives funding, recommended by the Legislature. The village of Columbus very recently got funding. And the Water Trust Board is recommending funding for the New Model Ditch in Virden this year. The city of Deming got funding. So, it is doing its job. The process it goes through for its projects is much more complex than I believe they will have to go through to recommend to the ISC. Since the Water Trust Board is not actually funding the projects with its funding, it would focus its analysis on the technical aspects and the relative priorities, which they have expertise in, so I personally trust they can do that job. When I hold it up to the job I've seen the CAP Entity do over the past five years, my guess is they can do it more impartially and more efficiently than what we've seen here. I do have one more question. I did not understand about what you said about private development of water. My recollection of the Arizona Water Settlements Act is that it requires that any development of water be for the members of the CAP Entity. So, maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't it still be for the members of the CAP Entity even if it were by a private developer?"
Gutierrez said the language is not necessarily for the benefit of members of the CAP Entity. "It is for the beneficial use of the water in southwest New Mexico. Potentially, somebody could develop the AWSA water and if an entity wants the water, it would potentially have to purchase that water. There is language in the act that says the New Mexico CAP Entity would own the infrastructure related to the New Mexico Unit. I'm assuming there would have to be some sort of agreement or contract. But that doesn't prevent a corporate entity from developing and purchasing that water. There's language about the infrastructure, about the beneficial use, but nothing that prevents corporate development and purchasing of the water."
Browne said: "So, that corporate entity would come in and invest the money to build some method of diverting water that would meet the CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement) requirements to deliver water downstream and that entity would pay for the exchange water and would turn around and sell the water for beneficial use in the four-county region?"
"The only other thing I would like to say is that it could use existing infrastructure," Gutierrez replied. "In order to use the existing infrastructure, it would make the NEPA process much easier. Potentially you would only need an environmental analysis. So, if you use existing infrastructure, you are correct you would have to pay exchange costs. But if you're looking for municipal use of the water the cost becomes much more feasible than for agriculture."
Browne said some might be think he's going out on a limb and might be surprised by what he's going to say. "So, if a private entity pulled that off. They take their own risk and then end up providing water to the municipalities in the four-county region, I don't see a problem there. It doesn't get shipped to El Paso or Albuquerque. Private investment to provide a local benefit, I'm not at all opposed to that. I'm not sure what your fear is."
Edwards said the way Browne had just articulated it, she wasn't opposed either. "My concern is water leaving the area for profit for a private entity to be sold elsewhere. If we're talking about a private investor building infrastructure, paying all the costs to provide water to the four-county area. Then I heard Anthony said it would be less expensive to do that with existing infrastructure. So maybe I'm missing something here, but why the hell weren't we discussing something like that five years ago?"
"We actually did discuss that five years ago," Gutierrez said. "We discussed it with Freeport-McMoran to utilize the existing infrastructure. They were uncertain about what would be involved in the NEPA process. They were not necessarily at that time willing to enter into any type of negotiation that would potentially affect their operations, so that's why it didn't move forward. So, that's why we didn't continue the discussion."
"So, to continue to talk about that as a potentially viable solution is simply an obfuscation in my opinion, because we don't have any clue at this point if that is a possibility," Edwards said. "We have already dismissed it as a possibility. One of the things that I find really challenging about this conversation is that it is an extremely important conversation we have to have about our water future. I'm not wildly excited about the Water Trust Board. But I'm not wildly excited about the CAP Entity either. One of the challenges of this conversation is that it is A) a conversation we need to be having in the four-county region and to some extent it's being had in Santa Fe, but it's only offering us the option of the Water Trust Board or the CAP Entity. That's simply a statement."
Billings said: "I agree with what Commissioner Edwards just said. The actual language says: 'the Water Trust Board shall evaluate projects, including their environmental impacts in the southwest region of New Mexico and shall recommend projects to the Interstate Stream Commission.' That's pretty clear that the Water Trust Board is going to have a lot of authority there. I think if Rep. McQueen or actually our local representatives would get together with the municipalities and discuss this, they could come up with a better solution than the Water Trust Board."
The next item on the agenda was a discussion on the fiscal year 2022 budget.
Financial Services Director Linda Vasquez said, as of Jan. 31, 2021, the county is in line with its approved budget for fiscal year 2021. "We have received 51.75 percent of our budgeted revenues for fiscal year 2021 and our expenditures stand at 48-49 percent. "I mentioned last meeting that we had a loss in copper production, but we did have an increase in the county equalization of $197,000 and an additional $42,000 in our fixed local GRT distribution through HB 6. So, we are able to make up for that loss in copper for THIS fiscal year."
County Manager Charlene Webb explained that the equalization is based on a complicated formula.
"What I propose to do is send out budget requests to all the departments to submit their requests and I will set a deadline and then we will hold a hearing with them presenting their requests to the commissioners for you to present and put in your requests," Vasquez said. "Then I can develop a budget. By then, we should have a better idea of our revenues. Let me know by sometime in March what you want to see budgeted for the year. We'll hold at least two hearings with the commissioners."
Edwards asked if Vasquez were anticipating hearings at the April and May second work sessions, to which Vasquez replied yes.
Ponce said: "How long have our employees been waiting for things to get better? Maybe we should wait until we get the full effect from the mine layoffs, so 2023 maybe? Maybe this year, we can focus on employee development and training. Our projects are very important. We have to look at all the projects, but my opinion is that we should move forward with our employees and how we can move forward. I understand the negotiations (with the unions) and we can't do anything until then. Someday, there may be something we cannot afford. I think we should keep operating budgets the same. That's what I'm thinking at the moment."
Salas said he would mirror what Ponce said. "If we wanted to add anything to the budget, we would have to rob Peter to pay Paul?
Vasquez confirmed "yes, pretty much it's that way. Not only on how revenue comes in, but what we can have as a cash carry-over. If it's high, it will determine what we can do. The preliminary budget is due June 1 and the final by July 31."
Salas said he would like to see what fiscal impact a percentage raise and a fixed amount raise would cost.
Ponce said union negotiations would determine what numbers the county can get.
"My key wish is an assistant for Charlene," Salas said. "I would like to know if that is possible with the current budget."
Vasquez said the position was budgeted, and "we do have the funds, but it was not filled because we were waiting on the copper production revenues."
Ponce said he believed it should be left to the manager to determine if and when she wants an assistant.
"We approved an HR director, but not an assistant to the county manager," Webb said. "An assistant with HR emphasis might be good."
Browne noted that the commissioners should not be approving specific positions. "Yes, approving budgets to make it happen, but not approving specific positions. If we have to formally clarify it, let's do that at the next meeting."
"On a different subject, to what extent are there budgetary constraints for personnel development?" Browne asked.
"We've not run into any money constraints," Webb replied. "We can offer training, but not force people to take training. The union says we can't do that. We've thrown things out there and the employees show no interest. We have to find a way to find things that appeal to the employees. I will provide you a list of what's happening. It is department head and elected official driven. Any department head that answers to me, they know it's my priority. It always has been. We try to find relevant training for the particular position. A lot of positions we have are a little odd and you can't find training that is specific to what they do. One example is Ray Castillo in the planning office. He does a lot of things and trying to find training for him isn't easy. He does his job well. I had a conversation with him to ask him what he wanted. Some employees are content right where they are and have no intent to move up. We've been having a lot of discussions about what to provide to make them a better employee. Sometimes, it's a bit of a challenge. I will show you what we're doing, and I'll ask them what they want and then we'll try to put a monetary figure on it to provide what they would like."
Ponce said last year, if he remembered correctly, each department had $2,500 for training per department. "It's up to the employee. If they want to get left behind, it's their choice. But what can you do with $2,500? Does it need to be increased?"
"I will include that in my discussions with department heads," Webb said. "No one last year asked for more for training. We'll look at it and get their wishes because they know what they need."
Webb also said that the county has done its best to cross-train people, so nothing gets dropped if someone leaves.
Salas said another reason for cross-training is to develop an interim for positions until a new person can come in to fill a vacant position.
Browne said he believed this work session had done exactly what he hoped it would do. "You have on the list a request for a copper production presentation and now maybe a step classification system. We have extolled what Sheriff Gomez has done. That's context for the salaries."
During commissioner reports, Billings said he wanted to congratulate the U.S. Department of Transportation for agreeing to continue to have Advanced Air provide essential air service to Grant County. "I've talked to folks who don't know about the subsidy. It looks like it's about $3,000 per flight. It costs us $70 to Albuquerque and $90 to Phoenix. I think the subsidy makes a positive difference to Grant County and to Advanced Air."
Salas said: "I don't know about HB 200. It scares me about more government red tape, but I this point I don't think there's much we can do. I want to talk more about veterans. The VA is a complex monster. A lot of veterans have just given up. There seems to be a focus to keep PTSD hidden. I joined a group with El Paso, so I can't go to this clinic, because I belong to El Paso. It's why my appointments are in Las Cruces and El Paso. Those things become obstacles. I think having a representative here is very important. It's great that the university has one who helps veterans."
Browne said his concern is the delay in money to the area for local water-related projects. "I believe that the CAP Entity has shown a considerable antipathy to funding projects. It seems many want to live off the interest of the entity and not put any money toward water development and water utilization projects in this area. I'm not saying that's a majority. In fact, I don't know if it's a majority, because they haven't taken a vote on that idea. The way we are going to wrest that money for projects anytime soon is through this bill, I believe. I think it's a shame to have to get a statewide body to intervene to make that happen. But that's just the way it is, unfortunately."
[Editor's Note: The CAP Entity has NEVER had authority to spend money on projects in the region only to consult with the Interstate Stream Commission. Their most recent year budgets have included engineering services to provide information for the NEPA process, but they have had no authority to spend money on projects. NONE.
The group's reasoning behind keeping the New Mexico Unit sustainable is so that MORE local projects can be funded, if the whole pot of money is not blown on one project or blown by the state for non-water related projects. Yes, most of the NM CAP Entity members would have preferred a Unit, but the ISC put a stop to that last June.
The members can suggest things to the Interstate Stream Commission, and the members in the preceding organization (many of whom are the same people) did exactly that (before the state told the Secretary of the Interior that New Mexico wanted to develop a unit). The Gila-San Francisco Water Commission developed criteria for projects that the ISC vetted and were persuaded to spend $9.1 million on some of these projects in the area, including $2.1 million toward the Hurley project. That is $9.1 million awarded to local projects out of the $15 million that has been spent by the ISC out of the New Mexico Unit Fund, which legislators have had their eyes on since the creation of the fund in 2010, with mouths watering to spend the money on statewide projects.
The most recent proposed amendment to the joint-powers agreement between the CAP Entity and the ISC was approved unanimously by the quorum of entity membership present at the Feb. 2, 2021 meeting, and the draft was sent to the Interstate Stream Commission. The proposed amended JPA will prioritize non-unit alternatives for local four-county entities to conserve or develop water for beneficial use. But the ISC sent it back with requests for further amendments. At this point, only the ISC has the authority to designate money toward projects, with consultation with the NM CAP Entity as stipulated in language in the Arizona Water Settlements Act.]
Edwards in her commissioner comments said she was appalled at the decision to take away the local Veterans Services Officer, thinking that with the pandemic they would need fewer services. "Especially when isolation and fear will exacerbate things like PTSD. I would like to see us submit sooner rather than later, specifically a request with a letter or resolution to have a VSO assigned to Grant County. The VA requires that if the clinic in an area cannot offer the services needed that a contract be created with a provider in the area. They have been trying to do a contract with Gila Regional Medical Center, but the bureaucratic process is terrible and mind-boggling."
She said earlier that she has been trying to figure out the whole water project and the CAP Entity. "I'm not an expert on this issue. I've spent an inordinate amount trying to figure it out. The function as I understand it for the Study Group was to come up with projects and prioritize them. I think we need to get back to that sort of collaborative process. I'm in support of HB 200 because I don't think the CAP Entity is the body to do that. But I don't think the Water Trust Board is, either. I'm very torn about it. I would like us to be able to hit the reset button on this issue and figure out a way to work on water issues together in a collaborative way. I think sometimes, what happens is what happened to the CAP Entity. There is so much baggage with that organization that it would be better to start over. Sometimes, you can't erase the history of a policy-making body and have to start over."
"I also agree with Harry that what happened is exactly what I hoped would happen with the work session, and it's a powerful start on some great collaborative work," she concluded.
Ponce said it was disheartening "what we heard about veterans. Everything is blamed on COVID. I understand it, but services need to continue, and we shouldn't use COVID as an excuse, especially when it comes to mental well-being, the rising number of suicides and drug overdoses. The world keeps going. I think we need to start doing better around COVID. I've been getting calls from veterans. Things need to be streamlined. I will research how I can help. About HB 200, what bothers me are the water issues in Hurley and Hanover. I understand the farmers needs the water, too, and I'm not against that. I would like to see something come down with this water to alleviate some of these problems."
He also asked if Webb if he could set up a meeting with Webb to get education on the process.
Ponce also asked about the final outcome on the flags in Arenas Valley that some people thought were offensive. Webb said she doesn't have a final legal opinion, but that the county attorney is leaning toward the person having the right to express their 1st Amendment right.
The meeting adjourned.