I feel like this proposal came out of nowhere and now is being voted on in a hurry. I am unclear as to what a "Social Services Hub" is and I don't understand why it's important for it to be located on these plots of property. What is lacking in this area of our community is retail space and services. What used to be a grocery store/gas station/garage/restaurant/etc shouldn't just be converted to another "county owned facility". Converting LAPS owned property to this purpose makes more sense.
There has been little or no public involvement in this proposed action. Is there a plan for the use of this property other than a vague reference to social services. Why is this the preferred site for consolidated social services. What are the benefits of this site compared too other options with regard to cost and community accessibility? It is not clear that any real thought has gone into this proposal.
This is a significant outlay of funds and this decision needs more time for taxpayer review. Currently, Los Alamos already has issues supporting established businesses in that we have little to no available staff to run them. I would much rather see these funds spent on the current businesses in Los Alamos to revitalize their buildings, ADA compliance, and more. Downtown revitalization and renovation should be the focus, at a minimum.
The public needs more information- Please Council members ask questions! What is the plan? How much will it cost- not only the land purchase but the development? Why is this now for sale? Morning Glory was put out of business and now the County is supposed to buy from whom? What kind of profit will they make? Is this the same as with CB Fox and Reel Deal theater? Outside party buys and then wants to sell back to the County at a profit? Where will the other remaining businesses go?
Last minute notice, a 30 day agreement already drafted, 7 "pages" of bare minimum presentation & a 1 line item Budget entry. Where is the cash flow analysis of what amounts to a commercial real estate transaction with tenants? Where are projections to account for potential reduction in GRT? Where is the analysis of a retail/housing component & impact on neighborhood residents? Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen any information or public engagement on this proposal. So many questions.
Chair Derkacs and Councilors, I propose that we delay a decision on this contract by at least 6 months until we better understand what LANL funding will look like under our new government, and the consequential reduction in NMGRT from LANL to LAC. It seems there are possibilities that DOGE will reduce funding, plus there are thoughts that all non-pit work might be relocated from Los Alamos. Thank you.
I am unaware of any attempt by the County to explain this proposal or engage public opinion and input. This showed up out of the blue late on Friday and the staff seems to suggest that the Council rubber stamp it. Nothing in the staff report provides any useful information about how why use of economic development funds is rational and those funds are not appropriate for this purpose. There is no economic development project described. The County does not belong in the landlord business.
I feel like this proposal came out of nowhere and now is being voted on in a hurry. I am unclear as to what a "Social Services Hub" is and I don't understand why it's important for it to be located on these plots of property. What is lacking in this area of our community is retail space and services. What used to be a grocery store/gas station/garage/restaurant/etc shouldn't just be converted to another "county owned facility". Converting LAPS owned property to this purpose makes more sense.
There has been little or no public involvement in this proposed action. Is there a plan for the use of this property other than a vague reference to social services. Why is this the preferred site for consolidated social services. What are the benefits of this site compared too other options with regard to cost and community accessibility? It is not clear that any real thought has gone into this proposal.
This is a significant outlay of funds and this decision needs more time for taxpayer review. Currently, Los Alamos already has issues supporting established businesses in that we have little to no available staff to run them. I would much rather see these funds spent on the current businesses in Los Alamos to revitalize their buildings, ADA compliance, and more. Downtown revitalization and renovation should be the focus, at a minimum.
The public needs more information- Please Council members ask questions! What is the plan? How much will it cost- not only the land purchase but the development? Why is this now for sale? Morning Glory was put out of business and now the County is supposed to buy from whom? What kind of profit will they make? Is this the same as with CB Fox and Reel Deal theater? Outside party buys and then wants to sell back to the County at a profit? Where will the other remaining businesses go?
Last minute notice, a 30 day agreement already drafted, 7 "pages" of bare minimum presentation & a 1 line item Budget entry. Where is the cash flow analysis of what amounts to a commercial real estate transaction with tenants? Where are projections to account for potential reduction in GRT? Where is the analysis of a retail/housing component & impact on neighborhood residents? Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen any information or public engagement on this proposal. So many questions.
Chair Derkacs and Councilors, I propose that we delay a decision on this contract by at least 6 months until we better understand what LANL funding will look like under our new government, and the consequential reduction in NMGRT from LANL to LAC. It seems there are possibilities that DOGE will reduce funding, plus there are thoughts that all non-pit work might be relocated from Los Alamos. Thank you.
I am unaware of any attempt by the County to explain this proposal or engage public opinion and input. This showed up out of the blue late on Friday and the staff seems to suggest that the Council rubber stamp it. Nothing in the staff report provides any useful information about how why use of economic development funds is rational and those funds are not appropriate for this purpose. There is no economic development project described. The County does not belong in the landlord business.