A True Municipal Monstrosity

I do not support the county's plan for a new municipal building because the size of the building and the project budget have grown to a level that I feel can not be justified. An additional 10 million dollars has been added to the budget beyond the 15.8 million originally allocated to the project. As I see it this is a step in the wrong direction.

On Feburary 25th the council approved a space plan for the new building consisting of 49,000 square feet as the base, with the option for an additional 16,000 square foot records and archive center. I do not agree with the assumptions underlying this space plan. First the GSA standards for net assignable square feet cited in the plan in my view do not reflect the high cost of property in Los Alamos, relative to other communities of similar size. Second, a grossing factor of 1.35 was used in the space plan to determine gross square feet from net assignable square feet. In my opinion this factor is entirely arbitrary. The GSA standards do not provide guidance on how to choose this factor. One can make the building as large as desired by adjusting the grossing factor. Third, the space plan assumes an average office space of 132 square feet (11' by 12') with some offices being as large as 160 square feet. Wouldn't most people be comfortable with an office having 100 square feet, especially since provisions have been made for conference rooms in the new building?

A better estimate of the required space for the new building, which will house approximately 170 staff, is the space that was occupied by these employees, primarily in the old Annex building on Trinity Drive and the old municipal building. This has been estimated as 36,000 square feet. It is desirable to have room for expansion, but is hard for me to imagine any future scenario where the county workforce grows enough to justify a 49,000 square foot building, particularly in light of the fact that judicial functions now take place in a separate facility.

For me another troubling component of the project is the 14,000 square foot add alternate proposal for the new records and archive center adjacent to the municipal building. We are currently using 8000 square feet of space at the Airport Basin facilities to store county records and the historical archive has been kept in Fuller Lodge for some time, using 3000 square feet. I agree that it is desirable to move some of the materials in the historical archive from Fuller Lodge, to better preserve both the archive materials and Fuller Lodge itself. I feel that the ideal location for some of our historic archive materials is the Community Building, which has approximately 13,000 square feet of space. This building will be vacated after the new municipal building is built. In my view the Community Building is more than adequate to accomodate future storage needs for the historic archive and county records. Furthermore I feel it is more desirable to have the historic materials located in close proximity to Fuller Lodge.

I do not see the need for a new 14,000 square foot record and archive building, especially when 4,000 square feet of this space is being proposed not for storage but as an administrative area. I do not support hiring additional staff to occupy this administrative space for the county records function. I am extremely pleased with the tremendous progress that has been made during the past year by our records administrator and her staff, who have reduced the number of boxes containing public records from 5400 to less than 2000. They implemented an efficient system to catalog public records and dispose of limited retention items after the county is no longer required to keep them. Considering all of the public records held by the county approximately 30% are limited retention items. The recent progress in reducing our public records has been made without a dedicated new facility for county records. I disagree with the argument that relatively strict temperature and humidity controls, as prescribed by the NARA organization, are necessary and these features can only be implemented in a new facility. Although the kinds of measures outlined by NARA are helpful, they are not a legal requirement; there are no legal requirements for the manner in which public records are stored.

The budget for this project is bloated with 6 million dollars being allocated beyond the contract cost of 19.5 million for the design and construction of the facility itself including the record center. The 6 million dollar amount assumes a 10% contingency for the project as well as costs for the project management and relevant GRT expenditures. These three items amount to 3.3 million, yet there remains an additional 2.7 million in the budget. I put the question to the staff as to what costs this extra 2.7 million will be used to cover and I did not receive a clear or satisfying answer. If there isn't a compelling need for this money to be in the municipal building budget, I would rather allocate it for other CIP projects that arguably would benefit many more people in our community, such as the White Rock library, ice rink improvements, Ashley pond improvements and teen center.

There is one message that I hear from our citizens and it comes across loud and clear: the citizens don't want another bloated and exuberant government building. In my opinion building a municipal building that is much larger than required and constructing a record center that is redundant at best does very little to benefit our citizens, rather these decisions only ensure more profit for construction companies. I appreciate the need for a new municipal building, but the council should listen to the concerns of the 1600 people who signed the municipal building petition and cut out the pork from this municipal building plan, which is now a true municipal monstrosity.

A Big Box Store on the Trinity Site is not Certain

In my view the single most important improvement that we can make to our community is to have a big box retail store locate here, for the benefit of all our citizens and especially our young families. The North American Development Group (NADG) is a capable retail development company and their proposal is the most viable way for us to realize a big box store in Los Alamos. In NADG's proposal the big box anchor is a Smith's Marketplace store, which would be the first of its kind in New Mexico, providing not just groceries but household products, electronics, clothes and many other items. The big box store will attract other nationally recognized retailers. The NADG proposal with Smith's Marketplace as the big box anchor will translate into the most lease revenue for our public schools. This is the most important reason to support the NADG proposal.



In selecting NADG as the developer for the Trinity site our work is not finished and the public should not conclude that a big box retail store is guaranteed. Until we have a signed contract with NADG nothing is certain. From my point of view the worst outcome would be a prolonged negotiation with NADG that lasts several months and ultimately ends with the parties failing to reach an agreement. NADG has submitted to the county a best offer proposal which calls for a 75 year lease commitment with NADG paying $500,000 in rent annually. Furthermore NADG proposes that the rent increase by 10% every ten years. There would be no financial contribution by the county to the project.



We need to act on the time scale of weeks rather than months. I feel that it is not enough for the Council to simply select NADG as the developer. To show the public that we are serious about actually having a big box store, the county should enter into a letter of intent with NADG now, committing to the general terms of its best offer proposal. I find the prospect of a lengthy negotiation entirely unattractive. If issues arise during the negotiations that complicate the process or preclude an agreement, the public should know about them when they occur. We should not keep the public in the dark.



The public wants a big box store and our schools need the lease revenue that such a store would provide. Now is not the time for more excuses or delays. I encourage the county administrator and economic vitality manager, as well as the corporate members of Smith's and NADG to contact the councilors directly if issues arise, so that we can help work through these issues and keep the public informed. Lets seize this opportunity to provide our citizens with the kind of basic retail that is taken for granted in other communities.

Proposed Nuisance Ordinance Goes Too Far

We are not a covenant community and I don't favor transforming Los Alamos into a covenant community. The new nuisance ordinance would do just that. I support the existing provisions in our county code that prohibit the acculumation of rubish and refuse on residential property. Furthermore I support our existing regulations that declare as unlawful the accumulation of weeds or grasses that constitute a fire or safety hazard. These are exactly the kind of regulations that should be enforced for the benefit of the public.



The new draft nuisance ordinance broadly expands the number of regulations that the county would need to enforce. I don't feel it is prudent for us to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code because there are several provisions of this code that are far too restrictive. A significant number of homes in our community do not meet the international standard and as I see things we would need to significantly expand our county workforce in order to deal with all the violations that would arise under the new draft nuisance ordinance. We shouldn't go down this path.



I am not comfortable requiring our citizens to maintain 6 inch lawns or to insist that all RVs be parked on paved driveways. I can not support giving county employees the right to enter private property without the owner's consent to perform work on the property related to violations of the new ordinance. This provision alone has the potential to cause a great deal of conflict in our community and create unforseen problems. Furthermore I feel that a sentence of up to 90 days in jail for a third time offense is too severe.



These are all good reasons by themselves for us to reject the proposed new draft nuisance ordinance, but for me the most compelling reason is that I envision that this ordinance will not be applied equally to all. This far reaching ordinance will be enforced for some and not for others. Furthermore the ordinance allows for waivers to be granted. Some individuals will receive waivers and others will not. Good public policy should be applied uniformly to all without exceptions. I don't believe this will be the case with the new ordinance , and this will be another source of conflict and division in our community.



Our community is fortunate to accomodate a diverse set of lifestyle choices. I don't believe we should legislate the lifestyle choices of our citizens. I favor common sense nuisance regulations that promote fire prevention and public safety. The new draft nuisance ordinance is more about controlling lifestyle choices than fire prevention and public safety. The Council should reject this proposed new nuisance ordinance.

Our Citizens Deserve a Chance to Vote on Muni Building Petition

Listening to the arguments made by Mr. Richard Hannenmann this evening at the council meeting I feel that we should allow his petition, calling for the county to restore the original municipal building at its original location, to go to the voters. I trust the legal opinion of our County Attorney Randy Audio on these matters more than anyone else. Although there may be a valid argument for the petition being an illegal initiative under NM law, Council is not a court of law and I am not comfortable declaring the petition illegal. Only a court should decide the legality of this petition.

I agree with Mr. Hannenman that it is appropriate to move forward and have the election. If the voters approve the petition and an interested party wishes to challenge the legality of this initiative than after the election that party can seek a judgement in the appropriate court of law. Furthermore under these circumstances a clear legal conflict would exist and the court would be required to hear the case and render an opinion.

I feel that we have gone array on Council. We have an opportunity to rebuild trust between the Council and the community this evening by allowing the special election to take place. There is no better way to judge public opinion than by the voting that takes place on election day. At the very least this election will give us a clear indication of what the community wants with regards to a municipal building even if the result proves not to be legally binding. We should always welcome this kind of public input. We should give our citizens a chance to vote on this petition.