Council Needs New Priorities

I have a different set of priorities than the current council and I feel that lavish spending on bloated government buildings, such as the municipal building and the justice center, has done little to address the critical issue facing our community which is attracting more young families to live here. I am running for re-election to the county council to bring a common sense fiscally conservative approach to our county government.

Although there is a perception that the county has a large reserve of money for capital projects, in reality the county's budget is tightly constrained. Currently the operational expenses of the county exceed 47 million dollars and the county has almost 600 employees, excluding the utilities department. The county had about 50 million dollars of general fund revenue in 2012 and the majority of this amount was related to LANL GRT. Large GRT revenue from LANL activities is not guaranteed in the future. The county must take prudent steps now to ensure that we are living within our means. I have been a strong advocate for the mandatory voter approval of large capital projects. I have steadfastly opposed expansive road projects that would create unnecessary obstacles for traffic and hurt local businesses. I am not afraid to take the minority position on council when the minority position is the right position for working people, families and small businesses. I have a proven record on the council of being an independent thinker who has the energy, ideas and determination to help our community achieve its goals.

My priorities include enacting a more fiscally conservative budget, creating more high tech jobs, expanding retail choices, enhancing revenue sources for our public schools, and creating new affordable housing options so that more of our workforce can live locally. I support county assistance to technology and research companies through the LEDA program to create high tech jobs and further develop the Research Park and the Entrada Business Park. We should make the private development of the 60 acre A-19 parcel in White Rock a high priority, so that new housing and retail options can be created through private enterprise. Our public schools are the jewel of our community and the county needs to take a leading role in helping our public schools find new revenue sources for operations, so our children have the best educational opportunities. I strongly support additional commercial projects like the new MarketPlace store at Trinity Place so that our public schools receive more lease revenue.

You can help me enact these priorities by donating to my campaign. There is more information about my campaign and how you can help at my campaign website which you can view by clicking here. Together we make our council better serve the interests of its citizens by reining in excessive and unsustainable county spending.

Lets Move Forward with Trinity Site Development

Voters approved ordinance 529 in 2007 authorizing the issuance of bonds to relocate county facilities and clear the Trinity Site, with the understanding that a new retail big box store would anchor the site and our public schools would receive lease revenue from the project. In 2011 the county council adopted as one of its strategic goals the 100% growth of retail activity in our community. During my time as county councilor I have been a champion of this vision for the Trinity Site because I am convinced that having a big box store on the site would generate the most revenue for our public schools. The lease agreement that has been negotiated between the county and NADG allows for the development of the site without requiring any financial contribution from the county. This is beneficial to the county because other alternatives to a big box store would most likely have the county taking on the role of developer with the county making lease payments to the public schools directly. The county might choose to build a civic-center or a similar type of county facility which would almost certainly require a substantial public contribution for project construction in addition to possible annual public subsidies. Another idea is to locate a higher educational institution on the Trinity Site. It is not clear whether such an educational organization or consortium would be willing to locate on the site, especially since other county land which could also be used for such a purpose has remained underutilized for several years.

Why not choose an option where a private developer pays both for the construction on the Trinity Site and for all the lease payments to the public schools? According to a 2009 study performed by a consulting firm hired by the county retail activity on the site could generate as much as $863,000 in GRT revenue. By utilizing GRT revenue from retail activity on the site the county can afford to give all the lease revenue from NADG to the public schools. The current agreement between the county and the public schools partitions the rent between the two entities with 82% going to the public schools ten years after the development lease is executed. I think we can do better than this arrangement and we should make it 100% in the first year. It seems to me that the county should start paying the public schools the full amount of the NADG sublease rent, about $511,000, upon approving the agreement with NADG, even though NADG does not pay the full rent amount on its sublease until the spring of 2014. I am willing to sponsor an ordinance implementing these changes into the master ground lease agreement between the county and the public schools so that our public schools receive the most lease revenue possible. Both the county and the public schools should benefit from retail activity on the site with the public schools receiving all the lease revenue and the county receiving the GRT revenue from retail sales.

The key element in maximizing the revenue for the public schools is the retail development by NADG. Several proposals were received by the county in 2010 for the development of the site with the NADG proposal offering the highest rent amount of about $500,000. Furthermore in the subsequent negotiated lease agreement NADG commits to paying $61,000 in rent for the non-anchor store portion of the lease, regardless of whether the non-anchor space is occupied or not. The non-anchor portion of the rent escalates by 10% every five years. The anchor portion of the rent is $450,000 which is fixed for the first 25 years of the lease. The fact both the developer NADG and the anchor chain Kroger are willing to invest in this project, committing to a 73 year lease, with escalating rent payments, and requiring substantial private financial contributions to build the site strongly suggests that there is sufficient market demand in Los Alamos for a successful project and the site will not be underutilized. As part of the negotiated lease agreement NADG is committed to constructing a portion of the Canyon Rim trail, as well as almost 45,000 square feet of additional space for retail, entertainment and restaurant uses, separate from the big box store. Both the Canyon Rim trail and the 45,000 square feet of non-anchor space represent the kind of lifestyle amenities in addition to the big box store that were part of the original vision for the Trinity site. We now have an opportunity to realize this original vision.

It is clear that NADG has a strong financial interest in not having empty store fronts on the site, since they will pay the $61,000 rent for the non-anchor space regardless of whether it is occupied or not. Furthermore Kroger has already purchased the Mari-Mac shopping center where its existing store is located at a cost of approximately 9 million. The new store will be substantially larger at 110,000 square feet, comparable to a Walmart Supercenter. Given its substantial investment in the Mari-Mac center I can’t imagine a scenario where Kroger forfeits its investment and does not redevelop the Mari-Mac center after moving into the Trinity site big box store. NADG and Kroger have strong relationships with national retail chains cultivated over many decades. Since expanding retail is one of the council’s strategic goals, it is appropriate to have experienced and established companies, like NADG and Kroger, bring us the kind of name brand retail that other communities take for granted and our young families having been wanting for many years. These kinds of retail companies are not interested in renting office space to the laboratory. After many years of difficulties in our retail economy with businesses closing, Los Alamos deserves something new and as county councilors we shouldn’t stand in the way of progress, especially when it is fueled by private investment.

Compared with other alternative ideas the big box store is most beneficial to the public schools because the lease money received by the public schools would not be tied to the county’s budget, wherein GRT revenue from LANL activities is the largest source of income. Last year the county received approximately 48 million in GRT revenue from LANL related activities whereas the county spent about 45 million to operate the county departments and provide public services. Looking to the future the possibility exists for reductions in the amount of GRT revenue received from LANL activities and the county has already committed to several expansive CIP projects including a new municipal building. In the long term it is not clear to me whether the county could make lease payments to the public schools in the absence of any income from activities on the Trinity site. Before we change course with regard to the Trinity Site development and discard the retail option we should carefully consider how much it will cost the taxpayers to build the alternative concepts and whether the county can afford to pay the lease payments to the public schools without additional county tax revenue.

Recently there has been a call to explore other options for the Trinity site. Haven’t the voters and the county council already decided the kind of development we want for the Trinity site? At this critical time I don’t support putting aside all the hard work of our staff and the citizen advisory committee to start down a fruitless path of entertaining nebulous ideas for the Trinity site supported by a new grandiose government spending project. Wouldn’t it be better for us to turn instead to private enterprise to enhance retail competition in Los Alamos and Northern New Mexico, while providing stable income for both the county and the public schools? I hope the council doesn’t forget all the voters who approved ordinance 529. When I cast my vote in favor of the Trinity site lease agreement I will be thinking not only of those voters but also of what is best for our public schools.

If you want more retail please email the school board members and county councilors, and tell them to vote yes. The email addresses are listed below.

m.mckinley@laschools.net

k.honnell@laschools.net

j.bjarke-mckenzie@laschools.net

d.foster@laschools.net

d.venhaus@laschools.net

countycouncil@lacnm.us

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.