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.