Council Should Stop Wasting Money on Roundabouts

Mr. Joel Williams has done a great service for the Council and the community by doing an independent and in depth analysis of the roundabout concept for Trinity Drive. I greatly appreciate the tremendous work that Mr. Williams has done analyzing the proposed roundabouts. Concerns about the throughput capacity of single lane roundabouts on Trinity Drive were confirmed recently by Ourston Roundabout Engineering, a firm that is highly regarded in the field of roundabout design. The council has received two petitions signed by more than 500 citizens, asking the council to keep Trinity Drive as four lanes and not add roundabouts. I feel that the Council should listen to Ourston Roundabout Engineering and to the petitioners, and that consideration of roundabouts for Trinity Drive should end this evening. Given the motion that we are now debating, however, it seems to me that the use of roundabouts on Trinity Drive has not been put to rest.

Quite to the contrary we are now discussing having the staff prepare design options for the section of Trinity Drive between Tewa Loop and Kencht, to be discussed at a future Council meeting. The final MIG report is focused on Option A3 with a roundabout at Tewa Loop and another roundabout at Airport Road. Given the county's experience with the NM 502 corridor design study and the public money that has already been spent on the roundabout concept why should the public expect that anything else other than a roundabout concept is going to be seriously considered at a future council meeting. I conclude from Mr. Williams' work and the Ourston review that any concept with single lane roundabouts is not going to meet our traffic flow requirements. Additional land would be required for a multi-lane roundabout concept and we have not evaluated whether even multi-lane roundabouts would be sufficient to meet our traffic flow needs. We have an opportunity tonight to show the public that as councilors we get the message. I believe that we should reject the MIG report and take no further action with regard to Trinity Drive. Lets allow NMDOT to continue with the process for improving the DP road intersection. The State identified a preferred design option for the DP road intersection more than two years ago. By conducting the Trinity Drive corridor study over the past year, in my opinion the county has delayed NMDOT from moving forward from its preferred design and making necessary changes to the intersection at DP Road.

A vote against roundabouts on Trinity is not a vote against pedestrians and bicyclists. We can improve access and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by continuing construction of the Canyon Rim Trail from the airport to the medical center. This is the ideal conduit for pedestrians and bicyclists because there is a buffer between the trail and traffic. I strongly support moving forward with this trail, which does not conflict in any way with the State's preferred option for the DP road intersection.

There is one conclusion from the MIG report that I feel we should act upon immediately. Sound mitigation in the Eastern Area through the use of an 8 foot high sound wall along East Road could reduce the noise levels for residents in the area by a significant amount. I ask the council leadership to add an agenda item to a future council meeting so that the council can direct the staff to prepare a RFP for the design and construction of a sound wall. We don't need another council work session item to consider roundabouts. What we need to do is tell the staff to stop exploring the roundabout concept. In conclusion I urge the Council to put the needs of commuters and small businesses first by formally directing the staff not to consider design changes for Trinity Drive that involve the use of roundabouts or the reduction of the number of driving lanes from four lanes to two lanes.

A Fair Debate on the Merits of Proposed Charter Amendment is Needed

The public hearing on Ordinance 587 that took place on August 2 2011 was unlike other hearings that have occurred during my term as county councilor. The councilor who sponsored the ordinance was not allowed to make a presentation to the council. A legal opinion of the charter amendment proposed by Ordinance 587 was presented by the county attorney that touched upon not only points of law but also policy matters, describing Ordinance 587 as bad policy that is contrary to our chosen form of government. The council voted to table the ordinance after brief remarks by a single councilor without affording any opportunity for the merits of the proposed charter amendment to be discussed by the council. The brevity of the council discussion was in sharp contrast to the length of the public comment period, more than thirty minutes, with the overwhelming majority of public comments being in support of the ordinance. When the council formulates public policy it is necessary for both sides of an issue to be heard and in my opinion the public hearing for Ordinance 587 was conducted in a way that unfairly muted the proponents of the ordinance.

I introduced Ordinance 587 because our citizens never had the chance to vote on the LAGRI charter amendment in 2010. A recent opinion by New Mexico Attorney General Gary Kings states that Los Alamos can legally amend its charter to allow voter approval of capital projects. The proposed charter amendment would take away the discretion of the council to fund certain capital projects that cost more than five million dollars without obtaining voter approval. It doesn’t surprise me that the county attorney feels that this proposed charter amendment is bad public policy. The county attorney is the legal advocate for the council. Who is the legal advocate for the public? It is too easy for the council to use untested legal theories to dismiss Ordinance 587. With regards to complex legal issues like charter amendments an unambiguous legal answer is often not readily apparent. A case involving a home rule municipality enacting a charter amendment of this kind has never been heard in a New Mexico court. The Los Alamos County Council is not a court of law and it should not pretend to be one. The legality of the proposed charter amendment should be decided only through the proper judicial process in court and the merits of the proposed charter amendment should be decided first by the voters of Los Alamos County.

One of our strategic goals as a county is to foster better communications between the council and the public. Allowing the citizens to set spending priorities for capital projects through an election furthers our goal of having better communications with the public. Many citizens question the need for large new county facilities and expansive road construction. In my opinion the divide in trust between the council and the public will only be bridged when the council summons the political courage to put the voices of our citizens ahead of those of special interest groups by adopting a charter amendment such as the one proposed in Ordinance 587. Council should allow a fair debate the merits of the proposed charter amendment first.

Let's Give Citizens Veto Power on Capital Projects

A recent opinion by New Mexico Attorney General Gary King stating that it is legally permissible for Los Alamos to amend it's charter to require voter approval of capital projects is a tremendous victory for more than 2000 Los Alamos citizens who signed a petition in 2009 proposing such a charter amendment. When more than 2000 citizens sign a petition their collective voice should not be ignored by local government. For this reason I introduced Ordinance 587 which proposes a charter amendment requiring voter approval of capital projects that cost more than five million dollars. One can read the complete ordinance by clicking here. In my opinion all citizens should have an equal opportunity to influence the decisions of local government and the voices of special interest groups should not be allowed to overpower the will of the public. As I see it many of our citizens are concerned about lavish county spending on bloated capital projects and feel that Council is not listening to the public. If Council won’t listen then why not give the citizens, who ultimately pay the bills for bloated capital projects such as the municipal building and the judicial complex, veto power? If our citizens feel that a forty million dollar project to narrow Trinity Drive and add multiple roundabouts to this vital road is not appropriate because it would cause problems for businesses and people commuting to work, they should be allowed to vote it down. The proposed charter amendment in Ordinance 587 will give voters the ability to do so. When has a democratic process stifled progress?

Ordinance 587 draws upon language and concepts that have come to fruition over several years beginning with the work of the Los Alamos Government Review Initiative (LAGRI) in 2009. Against a backdrop of unprecedented county spending on capital projects, LAGRI members obtained more than 2000 signatures in 2009 for a petition, proposing a charter amendment enabling voters to approve certain capital projects. Citing election law and concerns about whether the proposed charter amendment would constitute a legal question for voters, on January 23, 2010 Council decided not to have an election on this proposed charter amendment.

Councilors are empowered to propose charter amendments through the ordinance process. Given that the voters were not given a chance to decide the merits of the LAGRI petition, I introduced Ordinance 555 on April 13 2010. Ordinance 555 incorporated much of the same language as the LAGRI petition, including requiring all capital projects of 1 million dollars or more to obtain voter approval and specifying that a set of project requirements and a summary of the 60% design package be published 50 days prior to an annual election on capital projects. Ordinance 555 removed language from the original LAGRI petition concerning land conveyance and land use issues in order to assuage legal concerns about being a proper question for voters. In addition Ordinance 555 explicitly called for a special all mail ballot election on September 14, 2010 so voters could decide the proposed charter amendment.

In a memorandum issued on May 4 2010 the County Attorney stated that the electorate approval process for capital projects established by Ordinance 555 would be unlawful under New Mexico law. In her memorandum the County Attorney referred to a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Johnson v. City of Alamogordo, where the Court ruled that administrative acts by a local governing body are not subject to referendum. At a public hearing on May 11 2010 I argued that the legal criteria established in Johnson v. City of Alamogordo does not apply to the proposed charter amendment because the authority of a home rule municipality to require voter approval of capital projects is not expressly denied by the New Mexico Constitution. Council decided not to adopt Ordinance 555.

Subsequent to the public hearing on Ordinance 555, the Attorney General of New Mexico offered his opinion in a letter to the county administrator on whether Los Alamos could legally amend its Charter to require voter approval of capital projects. Attorney General Gary King and Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Glenn state in their letter dated May 11 2011 that a home rule municipality can exercise all powers that are not expressly denied by the New Mexico Constitution and that the power to obtain voter approval of capital projects is not expressly denied. They conclude that it is legally permissible for Los Alamos to amend its charter to allow voter approval of capital projects.

In light of the opinion by the Attorney General I feel it is appropriate for Council to address the issue again. Ordinance 587 incorporates several changes relative to Ordinance 555. The dollar threshold for voter approval of capital projects has been increased to 5 million dollars. A capital project is explicitly and narrowly defined as the acquisition, construction, improvement, or extension of one or more county assets including and limited to a structure, street, pedestrian path, landscaping element, communications conduit, vehicle, or device. Many of the concerns discussed at the June 14 2011 Council meeting are addressed in Ordinance 587 including an exemption for utility projects and for projects that are necessary in order to comply with environmental regulations, so that these particular kinds of projects would not have to obtain voter approval.

Ordinance 587 would allow for greater citizen input on the capital spending priorities of the county and would further the county’s strategic goal of fostering better communications between the Council and the public. Ordinance 587 would let citizens make the final determination on controversial projects such as new road construction on Trinity Drive. Should the need arise in the future for the dollar threshold to be raised, the Council can proposal a charter amendment to do so and would then have to convince the electorate that the increase is justified.

Council has an opportunity on August 2nd to adopt Ordinance 587 and affirm that it values public input on capital spending priorities. Our citizens should have veto power on large capital projects.

White Rock Road Changes May Cause Traffic Problems

Last August the Council selected a road cross section option for State Road 4 in White Rock that involves two driving lanes and if implemented would reduce the number of driving lanes from four to two between Pajarito and Rover with one driving lane in each direction. I voted against that road cross section option, not because I don't want to have money spent for capital improvements in White Rock and have new economic development take place there. I did vote for a new visitor's center and RV park near Sherwood Boulevard as well as other improvements and I would like to vote for road improvements as well, but I have serious reservations about the proposed road cross section for State Road 4. The Council did have the option of implementing four driving lanes together with new bicycle lanes, improved sidewalks and new medians with landscaping. We didn't choose that option and still I feel it is a superior option for several reasons. I look at the traffic analysis that has been done and I am skeptical of the conclusion that the proposed road cross section will be able to sustain the required traffic flow rate under certain situations. The traffic analysis that was performed did not consider any added traffic flow through White Rock along State Road 4 that would arise if the Laboratory closes Pajarito Road for the construction of the CMRR. Furthermore no consideration was given to how the proposed road cross section with just two driving lanes would impact our ability to evacuate White Rock should the need arise. Traffic counts are going to be higher in emergency situations and having four driving lanes together with bicycle lanes and sidewalks would be beneficial in these circumstances.

The proposed road cross section from Pajarito to Rover has 8 foot wide sidewalks, a 10 foot wide multi-use path, 8 foot wide landscaped buffer zones and landscaped medians that are 18 feet wide. I do not oppose putting landscaping along the road but in my view both 18 foot wide medians and 8 foot wide buffer zones are excessive. I don't see a compelling reason why 8 foot wide sidewalks are needed either, given that on Diamond Drive we installed 5 foot wide sidewalks. We could use some of this space in a more functional way by having four driving lanes which would help alleviate traffic congestion during peak travel times. Recent experience during the Diamond Drive road improvement project has demonstrated convincingly that restricting traffic flow to two driving lanes with a single lane in each direction can create significant delays for citizens commuting to work. It seems likely to me that putting in place similar traffic flow restrictions on State Road 4 in White Rock between Rover and Pajarito will create traffic congestion, with one key difference: the Diamond Drive restrictions were temporary whereas the traffic restriction along State Road 4 will be permanent. For these reasons I do not support the proposed changes for State Road 4 in White Rock and I will vote against this project. I know that it isn't Council's intention, but I hope that by implementing the new road cross section we don't inadvertently create a traffic jam in the morning for our citizens who live in White Rock and need to travel from Rover to Pajarito in order to get to work.

County Salary Plan Needs to be Fixed

In the FY2012 budget which was adopted by the Council in May the County spends approximately 39 million dollars on salaries for our employees. This item is the major expense associated with running our county government and providing essential services to our community. Our salary plan and compensation policy deserve careful attention and oversight by elected officials. For several years now a pay for performance policy has been used to determine the raises for our employees. I believe that we need to change the way we are implementing our pay for performance policy and reduce the discretion of managers in determining raise amounts because our current approach is causing problems with our salary plan.

In March 2010 several problems with the current salary plan were presented to Council as part of an overall market survey where the salaries of 95 positions in our local government were compared to the corresponding salaries offered in other communities and in private industry. The market survey was performed by Fox Lawson and Associates, an independent consulting firm hired by the County. A number of conclusions in this study are troubling. Typical organizations have a ratio of 4 employees to every job title in the salary plan, with high performing organizations having a ratio that is closer to 10 to 1. In our salary plan the ratio is 2.6 to 1 and the consultants recommended that Los Alamos consolidate the number of distinct job titles in its salary plan. In addition it was reported that there are 22 job positions in our plan where the midpoint of the salary range is between 11% and 20% higher than the market average. Keeping in mind that 95 job positions were considered as part of the market survey, it is disturbing that the consultants identified 9 job positions in our salary plan where our salary midpoint is more than 20% greater than the market value. In my view our current pay for performance policy is exacerbating the problems identified in the market survey. The consultants recommended that we downgrade those positions in our salary plan that are misaligned with the market average. In County government when we see a problem we should fix it. The FY2012 budget and its associated salary plan do not address the problems identified last year by Fox Lawson and Associates.

As part of my review of the County's FY2012 budget prior to its adoption by Council I did my own analysis of the amount that we pay for salaries in the various departments by dividing the total salary amount for each County organization by the total number of FTEs in that organization. I limited my analysis to those departments and divisions that do not have a significant number of temporary or casual employees. When it was proposed the FY2012 budget called for a 3% increase in the salary pool and I expected to see the salary cost per FTE increase by about 3% relative to the FY2011 budget for most organizations in the County government. This turned out not to be the case, with a few organizations getting an average salary increase that is considerably greater than 3%. The salary cost per FTE for the Capital Projects and Facilities department with 37 employees increased by about 5.3% from 2011 to 2012. The Office of Management and Budget, a division of the Administrative Service Department containing 12.75 FTEs, increased by 4.8%. The Transit division of the Public Work Department with 32 FTEs increased by 4.7% and the Administration division of the Administrative Services Department experienced a 5.7% increase. Unfair disparities in raise amounts seem to exist for the various organizations within County government, suggesting that some employees are getting relatively large raises at the expense of other employees. For example, the Public Works department overall has an average salary increase of 0.6% as opposed to the Transit division which has a 4.7% increase. I am not comfortable this kind of disparity and I feel that we need to modify our pay for performance policy, taking away some of the discretion of managers in determining raise amounts. In my opinion it would be better to give all our employees the same raise amount rather than continuing with a pay for performance policy which I contend is not being applied properly.

The County has approximately 680 employees. The overwhelming majority of these individuals do not appear before the Council and are not in the public spotlight yet what they do is important for our community. Let's show all our employees that we appreciate their efforts by treating them fairly and removing the large raise disparity that currently exists from our pay for performance policy. Let's show our citizens that we are serious about promoting a more efficient and cost effective government by making necessary changes in our salary plan to correct misaligned and overpaid job positions. The County's FY2012 budget does not adequately address either of these issues and in this regard it represents a business-as-usual approach to government. I voted against the FY2012 budget because I believe that a business-as-usual approach is not good for our employees and our community.

Lets Leave Trinity Drive Alone

I do not support another big road construction project for Los Alamos County. I feel that the proposals discussed as part of the Trinity Drive corridor study would improve the roadway, provide for greater pedestrian and bicycle access, and make the area more attractive. It is not for these reasons that I oppose making major changes to Trinity Drive. Given our recent history with the ongoing Diamond Drive road project I am extremely concerned about how a similar project on Trinity Drive would be executed and how prolonged construction in this area would adversely effect small businesses. We should think more carefully about the negative aspects associated with road construction before embarking on another multi-year, expansive road project.

The MIG consultants who are performing the corridor study for the County have presented several scenarios indicating that adding up to 9 roundabouts and reducing the number of driving lanes would actually improve the traffic flow. In a perfect world this may be true, but I find it hard to imagine given that the MIG proposals call for numerous new pedestrian crossings without crossing signals. Traffic yields to pedestrians and in these plans pedestrian crossings are an unpredictable element. Central Avenue is a good example of how traffic can be impacted by unpredictable pedestrian crossings. I feel that both traffic stop lights and pedestrian crossing signals are essential for pedestrian safety and to ensure a smooth traffic flow. Option A2 in the corridor study omits pedestrian crossing signals at the new roundabouts and A1 omits both traffic stop lights and pedestrian signals entirely.

No computer program or traffic analysis can adequately account for driver perception. If drivers perceive more delays because of construction or unpredictable pedestrian crossings they may choose to bypass Trinity Drive entirely, and bypass the businesses in this area. The robust flow of traffic is vital to our local economy. Trinity Drive is a major arterial road for our community with a peak daily traffic count of more than 18,000 vehicles, with 8,000 vehicles coming from outside the County for the work day. Local government shouldn't do anything to discourage these drivers from using Trinity Drive to go downtown for lunch or to shop before work. Diamond Drive is now a five year project. We did not correctly predict how long it would take to complete the Diamond Drive work; originally the County said the project would be completed in 3 years. There will be utility work associated with a new road project on Trinity Drive as well, adding further complexity and delays.

We did not adequately account for the negative effects the Diamond Drive work would have on businesses in the area, especially those businesses near the Conoco gas station. There is no doubt that several businesses suffered greatly during the construction period because traffic volume during lunch time was drastically reduced. Having learned from this experience why would the County want to cause similar hardships for the businesses on Trinity Drive? Local government should not be an obstacle for small businesses who depend on traffic for their existence.

Another factor influencing my decision not to support a Trinity Drive road construction project is that the County should be not waste public money. The NM State Department of Transportation recently resurfaced Trinity Drive with new asphalt and did an outstanding job. What justification is there now for the County to replace this new road surface that is barely two years old? If we discard this new road surface, then in my opinion we shouldn't expect the NM DOT to do any more road work in our community. There are many other communities in NM where State road money could be spent, rather than addressing priority projects in our community such as a sound barrier for the eastern area and the widening of State Road 4 between White Rock and NM 502.

Finally I can not ignore the many citizens who have contacted me and expressed their strong opposition to a big road construction project for Trinity Drive. My constituents have waited in traffic for up to forty minutes on numerous occasions during recent road construction on Diamond Drive. By moving forward with the Trinity Drive corridor study we are making it more likely that this experience will be repeated in the future. In my view we shouldn't make the community endure more delays during another 5 year road project, especially since a new road surface was recently installed on Trinity Drive. I pledge to the community that I will vote against any major road construction project for Trinity Drive. I ask the Council to put first and foremost the concerns of small businesses along Trinity Drive and motorists who have to travel this vital corridor every day when deciding whether to make major changes to Trinity Drive. We may inadvertently create a traffic nightmare for our citizens.