County Council - Session - Regular Meeting

I wanna welcome everybody to the 05/05/2026 county council regular session. We're here in White Rock and Fire Station 3. I think we have let just get back to my notes here. I believe we have one counselor online, so we'll get to that in a second. So tonight's meeting, like all the meetings we have, are in hybrid format. So we have people here in person. Appreciate that. And people also participating on Zoom. And people can participate with their computers or other devices if they like. During public comment, which we'll accept at the beginning of the meeting and also on agenda items over going through the meeting.

People will be, asked to, see if they wanna make public comment in the room or on Zoom. And, miss Madison will be looking on Zoom for, virtual attendees. Just ask that if you're a virtual attendee, please make sure you have your name on Zoom so it can be properly addressed. So, please limit comments to, three minutes unless you're otherwise directed. And virtual okay. We already talked about that. Okay. So the goal is to end the meeting no later than ten. We'll be checking our progress at nine if we're still meeting at that time. So and since we do have one counselor remote, can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Rigor?

Here.

Counselor Cole? Here. Councilor Haberman? Here. Councilor Herman? Here. Councilor Reidy?

Here.

Councilor Neil Clayton? Here. Councilor Henn? Who? Hunt. Councilor Hunt.

Sorry. Oh. I think

your mic wasn't. But Was that heard on the recording?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

We have six counselors in chamber and one online.

I think you might have to have the microphone a tad closer.

We have six counselors in chambers and one online, counselor Rigor.

Okay. Thank you. Let the record show we have all seven counselors. Councillor Rigor is remote this evening. So if you are willing and able, please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. So now we're on to item number three, which is public comment. So this is gonna be public comment for items that are not on tonight's agenda. Do we have anyone present here at the fire station that would like to make public comment? Okay. Not seeing anyone present. Ms. Madison, can you check online?

I can, Chair. If you'd like to pay public comment, please raise your hand. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. Thank you. So I think now we're on to item number four, which is approval of the agenda. Is there a counselor interested in making a motion regarding the agenda? Councilor Call?

I move that we approve the agenda as presented.

Second.

Okay. I think that was councilor Neil Clinton. Is that right? Okay. So we have motion by councilor Cole, second by councilor Neil Clinton. Not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Heng? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Rieger?

Yes.

Councilor Haberman? Yes. Councilor Herman?

Yes.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to item five, which is presentations, proclamations, recognitions. So five a will be two one one five zero dash two six. It's proclamation declaring May 2026 as building safety month in Los Alamos County. And I believe councilor Newklans has this one to read.

Whereas Los Alamos County recognizes our livelihood depends on the safety and essential role of our homes, buildings, and infrastructure plays every day and when disaster strikes. And whereas our confidence in these buildings is achieved through vigilant guardians, building safety and fire prevention officials, architects, designers, engineers, builders, tradespeople, and others in the construction industry who constantly work to ensure safe buildings, construction, and whereas the International Code Council sponsors Building Safety Month to highlight the critical role of our code officials play in protecting us in the buildings where we live, work, learn, and play. And whereas the theme for Building Safety Month twenty twenty six, Built to Last, encourages the Los Alamos County community to get involved by taking steps to improve safety at home, acknowledge the people who keep our built environment safe, encourage community preparedness through disaster resilient buildings, and learn the importance of building accessibility. Now, therefore, on behalf of the Council of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos County, I do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Building Safety Month in Los Alamos County. I call upon all citizens to show their appreciation to everyone who works to ensure our homes, buildings and infrastructure are safe and learn how to pitch in.

Dated this May 2026. Signed by Randall Reidy, Chair, Los Alamos County Council.

Thank you, Councillor Nippon. Would Mr. Eiselixson, our Chief of Courier, would like to make any remarks? The light's not on. Hit the person. Hold up.

Chair, fellow councilors, just wanna extend our appreciation to you guys for recognizing, this month as Building Safety Month. Our job is always to ensure the red the big red trucks don't don't run. If if you guys hear them running, that means somewhere along the line, we failed. So we just wanna ensure building safety for everybody.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members of council. I'll keep this very brief. But I just wanted to make sure we acknowledge that building safety in the county really is a team effort. It is the responsibility of the IDRC, our Interdepartmental Review Committee. We really work closely together to ensure that our built environment is as safe as possible. And I know it's CDD and fire here representing the team tonight, but there's a lot of folks at the county who work every day to make sure we have a very safe built environment. I want to make sure they're acknowledged as well. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Isaacson. So get a get a get a photo probably over there. Yeah.

And And then could you see the fire department?

K. K. Thank you, councilor. Okay. So then the next next item is 5B21153Dash26. It's the proclamation declaring May 2026 as historic preservation month in Los Alamos. And so we'll have councilor Hand read this one.

Thank you, chair. Whereas preservation month celebrates the power place and the countless ways big and small, the country safeguards and promotes historic places for future generations. And whereas the unique legacy of Los Alamos County is embodied in numerous sites, buildings, objects and landscapes associated with ancestral Puebloans, homesteaders, Los Alamos, French school students and faculty and scientists, soldiers and families from the Manhattan Project in Cold War and whereas preservation of and caring for historic places provide educational, scientific, and economic benefits for Los Alamos County's citizens and whereas historic preservation is an effective tool for revitalizing neighborhoods and maintaining community character while enhancing livability, fostering local pride and benefiting economic development by attracting tourism within Los Alamos County. Now therefore on behalf of the council of the incorporated county of Los Alamos, I do hereby proclaim May 2026 as historic preservation month in Los Alamos. I call upon all citizens to recognize the individuals and organizations that tirelessly endeavor to preserve and protect historic sites.

On behalf of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and the Los Alamos Historical Society, I invite everyone to visit the Fuller Lodge grounds and see the preservation work to protect the historic rose garden dated this May 2026 signed by Rand Randall Reidy, chair of Los Alamos County Council.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Hand. So you're gonna Patrick, you're gonna accept the make some remarks. Please come up.

Put the one that looks like a person. There we go.

Thank you, chair and council. I did have a few words. I I want to thank our county councilor counselors for all of their support for declaring May as historic preservation month. I want to acknowledge that May is National Historic Preservation Month, a celebration of our shared national heritage, especially during the year this year, the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our nation. This proclamation celebrates our local shared heritage and recognizes all of the accomplishments and celebrations that people, both past and present, have made to our county and, and also to our shared history on the Pau Rito Plateau.

And so on behalf of the Historic Preservation Board, I wanna thank you all for for making this declaration.

Okay. Thank you. Should I just get a photograph with

By the flag.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, So now we're on to item five c, which is two one four two five dash two six of the presentation by Mark Davis, deputy deputy laboratory director for operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory. So when you're ready, mister Davis, we'll get the PowerPoint up for you.

You may need to pull that mic closer to you.

Okay. That's good. Thank you. Thank you very much for having me tonight. I appreciate it, Mr.

Chair and council members. So I spoke to you last about a year ago, and I'm really excited to be here tonight to talk to you about the incredible work that the Lantel team has done over the past year, specifically the increased collaboration with our federal partners and local communities, our regional partners, and the great volunteer work that our team has done throughout the communities. So I'm really proud to be a part of the Lantel team. So when I last spoke to you, I talked about the dynamic geopolitical position that we found ourselves in. And it's hard to believe a year later and the situation is even more dynamic than it was last year.

And Lantel is at the forefront of the strategic deterrence efforts that our country is undertaking. So on the slide here you'll see a quote from the NNSA administrator which says that the heart and soul of the nuclear weapons enterprise is right here in Los Alamos. And so we're now entering what we at the lab like to call the fourth age of deterrence. So with the end of the Cold War and foregoing of nuclear testing, we were in what we call the third age of deterrence, which is stockpile stewardship. We maintained our stockpile, didn't build any substantially new weapons, kind of just maintained the status quo.

Now we're entering what we call the stockpile modernization period. And so our country is endeavoring to update all three legs of the triad simultaneously, which is a really huge undertaking. And so we're doing a couple key things in order to do that. We're obviously leveraging artificial intelligence to help us do that work. There's an increased focus on urgency and production, and really a sense of urgency to work together and collaborate, you know, both with our federal partners and the local communities.

Next please. So I'd like to say 2025 was a very good year at the lab. We accomplished a great deal and showed a lot of progress. We met our pit production requirements And we also had significant progress with LAP4, which is the capital project to upgrade and modernize our pit production facility. And so the analogy that I like to use when describing that effort, it's like you're flying a plane with a plane full of passengers while you're upgrading the plane.

And we've done all the easy things. We've replaced the carpet. We've covered the seats. Now we're rebuilding the engines. So that's really what we're doing in PF4 in our plutonium pit facility. So it takes a lot of collaboration, a lot of teamwork, and we're making great strides. A couple other things I just want to point out to the electrical power capacity upgrade project. We started that late last year. We're progressing quite well. It's a huge project for us.

It's bringing a third power line up to Los Alamos, which will enable a lot of our AI efforts going forward. We'll be with the two lines we have now, we'll be nearing capacity by 2028. We need that third power line to really take us to the next level. We also have collaborated with OpenAI and Nvidia to launch AI models on our Venato supercomputer, which is the latest one we have. While at the same time we announced the development of two next generation supercomputers, mission and vision, which will enable us going down the road leverage the AI things that we learn in the future.

Next please. So as I mentioned, the enterprise has really shifted from a sustainment to a production and delivery focus. And Llano plays a central role in that. And we need to really adapt quickly to the stockpile modernization effort. So NNSA has recently given us some transformation directives on how we can change our approach to how we do work.

And in fact, as we speak, the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, or NA10, Dave Beck, is here visiting the lab this afternoon and tomorrow to talk about those efforts. And they're really focused on how we can accelerate mission delivery, how we can deliver those things the nation needs more efficiently and effectively and obviously, you know, in a reasonable cost. One other effort I'd just like to mention, project velocity. So this is DOE led effort and it started earlier this calendar year to look at about 80 orders that DOE has to see how we could streamline those. And that effort is ongoing and we're optimistic that later this summer that will be complete and we'll start working those into the actual work that we do on a day to day basis.

Pit production is accelerating. You know, we've been asked to do more. How much more is still up for debate. But we know that we're going to be asked to do more than we have in the past. And so while doing that, while focusing on the production mission, we also have to maintain really our heritage of science and engineering expertise because that's what we need for the future.

We need to walk and chew gum at the same time, do all of these things simultaneously and that takes a great deal of collaboration. Next please. So as I mentioned, there's, you know, Lantel is a very big focus in Washington DC right now and this kind of shows over the past several months the number of visitors we had. Up in the left hand corner that's Matt Napoli who is the Nuclear Non Proliferation Lead at NNSA. He was here visiting us.

The center there on top is Dave Beck, NA10. He was here previously. He's here again. Scott Pappano on the upper right hand side is the Deputy, the number two at NNSA. He's been here.

In the lower left, that's a couple of people that are leading the project velocity effort, Jim McConnell who's the third in line at NNSA. And then in the center that's our lab director Tom Mason talking to the NNSA administrator Brandon Williams, and also Dario Gill who leads the science efforts at Department of Energy. And then finally, Admiral Rich Carrell who is the new leader of the strategic command. So lots of really important visitors. They're interested in what we're doing.

And they like to see how we're doing it. And we like to show them how we're doing things more efficiently and effectively, but at the same time safely and securely. Next please. So just wanted to take a bit of time to share with you some numbers. So, you know, we started the year on a period of CRs, you know, several different CRs continuing resolutions.

In January we got a full year appropriation which is at a level that's commiserate with the work we're trying to do. So that's $5,500,000,000 That's a lot of money, a lot of work going on. Dollars 2,200,000,000 of that is just in procurement. And we anticipate going forward in FY 'twenty seven and beyond that national security will play a center role so our budgets will, you know, at least stay at the same level if not increase. I talked previously about our increase in our workforce.

2023 that was really our peak year. We hired about 2,500 new employees. I think we now have reached pretty much a sustainment level. We're growing just a bit, but nowhere near the levels in 2023. So this year I anticipate we'll hire between 2,200 employees for some of that growth and to replace attrition.

In a normal year our attrition is about 800 to 900 people. So this year we anticipate we'll grow by a couple 100 people. Next please. So I talked a bit about the need to collaborate and you know regional partnerships are really essential to our success. So in FY25 we focused on project execution and had three fifty six, a little more than $356,000,000 in our construction spend plan.

Going forward we have about 1,650,000 square feet in near term construction that we have to execute. And in the short or excuse me, in the mid to long term that number is about 4,700,000 square feet of new construction that we have to undertake. That's a big lift for us and so we're looking for ways to become more effective and efficient at that. Obviously the goal is to deliver these projects at a quality level that we need on time and on budget. And so we're looking at commercial construction standards how we can do things you know like the commercial industry does.

To do those on the lab and in some cases off the lab you know. I'm sure that your big concern is traffic in the area, housing, how do we get the adequate housing for the workforce that we need. So we're looking at options off the lab. Can we transfer some of the non hands on work that we do, you know, perhaps off the lab in Santa Fe somewhere else, you know, down the hill in Pahockey. So we're looking at those options working with NNSA.

There's certainly nothing that's, you know, that's at the level that I can talk about, but there's discussions underway. Let me put it to you that way. I also wanted to mention some collaboration that we've done with LA County specifically here in the past few months because I think it's really important. And the fire department is here and the police department. We collaborate with them really every day to accomplish the mission.

But a couple of specific things we've done. So we recently did an active shooter drill in our facilities. And the fire department from Los Alamos County and the police department were involved in that. And it's really I actually went out and observed one of the scenarios. And it's very much real life like training.

And so really important that we do that. The type of facilities that we have available to do that training in are not available really anywhere else in the local community. So the fact that we can do that together, train together in that type of a scenario, really ups our game if we have something in real life. We also wildfire season is upon us, so we had a wildfire brief with both the police department, the fire department, and our regional partners, the tribes involved in that. We brought them up to the lab to talk about the situation and what we do in the event of a wildfire.

So I think that just makes us better prepared for those types of events. And lastly, the end of this month we're doing a full scale wildfire drill at the lab. And so that will bring in once again all of those regional partners, police department, fire department, and pretty much everyone at the lab to go through a wildfire scenario with injured personnel and the full gamut of things that you can imagine. So really important that we do those things. I think it's a great opportunity that we can exercise with the community and get those experts involved and the first responders.

It's very helpful. The last thing that I'll say on this slide is, you know, skilled trades are still in very high demand. We this year reached a level that we haven't, I think, in anybody's memory, about 1,500 trades that we have at the lab. And we still need to grow that by just a little bit, probably 100, 150 more. So really important for us to get those skills up there because at the end of the day, they're the people that do the work.

Next, please. So I wanted to just mention the economic impact we have in the community here. So last year a little over $381,000,000 in New Mexico small business procurements. Dollars 2,040,000,000 in salaries and 40% of that, 40% of our employees are native New Mexicans. So a lot of money going to the community.

We paid $141,000,000 in gross receipts tax. We worked closely with the Regional Development Corporation or RDC to leverage local resources and figure out how we can work together to meet our needs and help the local communities. And finally, business development programs that we have supported six forty four non lab jobs. So a lot going on in the community. And we're looking like I say, as we try and go faster and do more, we need the community's support to do that. Next, please. Yep. I think that's it. So I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. Okay.

Thank you, mister Davis. Do counselors have any questions or comments for mister Davis or councilor Han?

Hi. Well, mister Davis, thank you very much for your presentation. It's great to get an update to just understand what's going on on the lab side and how we can accommodate you on the county side of things. So, you know, we have been in moderate growth and accelerated growth and we're hearing moderate growth and all this and we have a comprehensive site plan currently that we need to update and we will get a lot of input from citizens of the community and I would imagine that would also include the laboratory and DOE. But I'm just wondering, you know, when I'm hearing numbers of, you know, gross by 200 people, that's significantly less than what we've heard in prior years, which is 2,000, 3,000 people.

So we're still pretty moderate as far as growth. Right? So, the amount of housing that we're trying to develop right now, I think I could be corrected by Dan Osborne in the audience, but I think it's like 1,600 houses that we have currently in the works in some phase or another and we could possibly need more. I just wonder if you have a feel for if you think the county is going in the right direction, if we need to ramp it up more, you know, we're hearing from the citizens but you know, what's your gut feel for that if you have one?

I absolutely do. So a couple of points out I'll make and thank you for that question. So I think, you know, the days of 2000 or 2,500 new employees are past us. I think, you know, the growth over the next several years will be modest, you know, and I think not unlike this year, a couple 100 at the most perhaps. Now that's not to say that something could change, but that's what we're planning for.

And so we work very closely. I meet with your city manager every month and we talk about these things and housing is always at the top of both of our lists. I will share with you that anecdotally, I've been in the job about sixteen or seventeen months now and been at Lantel for a little over four years. And when I first got here, that was pretty much all that was on the minds of the employees was housing. So I don't hear that as much anymore.

It obviously is still a concern, but I don't think it's as much of a concern as it has been previously. So I think we're going in the right direction. I think that the communication on a routine basis will help us, you know, that we stay closely tied but I do think that what you're doing is what needs to be done and so I don't have the concerns I guess I did a handful of years ago.

Okay, one of the other things you mentioned is that you're still in need of skilled trades that that's in high demand and something that I've mentioned in the past just to keep in the back of your mind is that Los Alamos National Laboratory really is the most they have the most advantage for hiring people because you have higher salaries, really good benefits, etcetera. And so what that automatically does is it creates a situation where a lot of lot of our small businesses, local businesses, schools, the county, we're losing our resources as you're building up yours and that does create an impact for the entire community. And just to keep that in mind, I don't really know what say, what we do about that but it's even more difficult for some of these other organizations especially small businesses to be able to recover from that. Recruiting at the laboratory is way easier than it is for a small business. And so it's it's that much more difficult for small businesses to be able to provide those services through subcontracting to the lab if their resources are gobbled up for things within your organization.

So that's more just a, you know, a but if you have any feedback on that.

No. I agree. And I think it's a challenge for all of us, you know, and and we're competing not with just the local community, but really with Albuquerque. I mean, much of our craft comes from Albuquerque. Frankly, not a lot surprised me when I took over this job. But I meet with a group of employees, a different group every month. And I was surprised at how many of them come all the way from Albuquerque or Rio Rancho. So a lot, especially the craft. There's a big number of them that come all that way. So that's really the industry there is who we're competing with.

But we certainly are sensitive, you know, and I have talks with my teams all the time. Money is not always the answer to everything. Sometimes that seems like the simple answer, but that creates problems too. We create our own problems, you know, when you raise the wages of one group, you know, the next group comes up and they want that too. So I just think we have to do our due diligence and money is not always the answer. There are other things too. But I'm certainly very sensitive to what you're talking about and once again the city manager and I talk about those types of things every month that we meet.

Thank you. I appreciate you listening. Yes, absolutely.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Gaffin. Have other Councilor Gaffin.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Davis, for your presentation and being here tonight. We appreciate the collaboration and partnership. Can you refresh our memory of what the current percentage is of employees at the laboratory who do not reside in Los Alamos County? Do you have a sense of that?

That do not reside.

Do not reside in the county? What percentage of your employees commute in from outside the county?

I don't have that.

I mean is it forty, fifty, 30%?

It's over 50%. We can get you the exact

Yeah, I've seen it in other presentations and I just didn't know what it was currently with some of the changes where your workforce is deployed and the lack of housing up here. The comment you just made that I think we all anecdotally observe all the time with the number people commuting up the hill from 95 miles away. So on that point, and related to the housing comments and questions, I mean there's kind of two aspects in my mind about housing. There's the quantity and then there's the price. And there's cost and there's actually total cost and there's negative externalities, in my opinion, when we don't have sufficient housing here.

There's ramifications on quality of life, on the environment, carbon footprint, sustainability, traffic safety, time with kids, volunteer hours wherever people reside. There's just huge opportunity costs when people are commuting. And I can say this as a longtime resident here, but also a longtime employee and resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. So I just always wonder if there's ways that we could work more collectively as a region here in Northern New Mexico to somehow create better opportunities for these employees who are commuting from Albuquerque and Rio Rancho and Bernalillo County to reside closer. And some may just not want to.

They might have spouses who live in those areas. I get it. They've got roots, families, support systems. I mean everyone makes choices about their own quality of life parameters. But I just hope and I just that we could make sure that people have a choice. And I'm wondering if you're hearing anything anecdotally and or through focus groups or the meetings you have about the number of people who commute who would rather not. And is there ways that we can make sure we don't lose our focus on housing availability and housing affordability.

Yeah, you know, a couple points that I will make with that, and thank you very much for the question. I think, you know, we're very focused on making the commute safer. That's a big issue with all of our employees. We do safety surveys periodically. In fact, we just did when we're waiting on the results now. But one of the questions we ask is what's your biggest concern in the workday? And the majority of them say coming to and from work. And so we're working very closely and I really appreciate the local communities and the police department support. I see it every day when I commute in. There's usually some police vehicles out there.

We appreciate that effort because it makes a very big difference in making the commute safer. And we're also looking at other ways, alternative transportation. We do have some buses running from Pohocky. We also have some running from the Black Mesa Casino. So for those people that are in the Albuquerque area, we also have van pool options available. So we're looking for ways regardless of where the people commute from, how we can make that commute more convenient and safer and easier for them. So we're looking at various options, just trying to offer people the most options wherever they choose to live.

Then just to follow-up, do you get a sense of some percentage of the workforce at Lantel who would prefer to live closer than they do? Mean you say that the number one thing you hear is just the scariest part of their day and the most frustrating part is the commute, but it was kind of in light of safety, I guess. But how

about just time on the road? You know, once again, I don't have scientific information on that, but I talk to a lot the employees and I talk to them about their personal situations. And I think for the most part, they choose to live where they want for family reasons and what they're used to and being close to people that they care about. So I don't often hear a lot

of

people complain that they want to live in Los Alamos and they can't. I'm sure there are some of them out there. But that's not a big concern that I hear from people.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Hapman. Councilor Culp?

Yeah. I just had a a a few questions. I'm getting feedback. I will say that we we attended a a tour at UNMLA recently, and there's a great area that they've they developed in in the basement of one of their buildings for welding. And the one thing that's holding them up is a welding teacher.

And it would I don't know if you've heard about that, if if there's some way to incentivize someone that's already working at the lab to to help do some teaching and improve the numbers for you and at least in the welding trade. The other thing is they're they're not really currently looking at electricians or other trades as far as I know, but they if that's something that you think would benefit, the laboratory, I think it's worth having that conversation with the chancellor there.

Yeah. I I we work closely with all of the, you know, the local, colleges and universities. I haven't heard that specific concern, but we certainly will reach out to see if there's anything we can help with. And, you know, whatever we can do to, you know, I think across the board, you know, for your question too, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats. So if we can provide more training for our local people to get the skills, regardless if they're going to come work at the lab or in local industry or in small businesses, I think it benefits all of us. So we certainly work every day to, you know, to to mutually benefit from those relationships.

Yeah. And I think Northern New Mexico College also may may have some programs as well. I don't wanna sound like I'm just promoting you in MLA. I was curious also, went on another tour. We went out to Fire Station 1. It's been under construction for a while. Do you have an idea of when that might get completed?

The Fire Station 1 or Fire Station 5?

I thought it was it 5? Oh, it's 5. My sorry. Yep.

Can we build another one I

didn't I think know put one I think you put one up there, and I was and that's why I wrote it down. But no, it's Fire Station 5 out by s site.

Oh yes, I know it very well. I visit at least once a week. So I'm cautiously optimistic by the end of this year it'll be complete. We've had obviously some challenges with contracting but I think we're working our way through those now. We're making progress. Actually I was just out there about a week ago and there's a lot of people out there working and very busy so I'm cautiously optimistic by the end of this year we'll be complete on that one. Great.

And then I guess the only other thing I'm curious about is have we started a second shift at the laboratory or are we working twenty four hours and because that potentially, could mean that we need to provide different services within the community.

Yes. So so lots of talk about that. So previously I would say, you know, the lab was a four ten operation, four days a week, ten hours a day with a few people that worked around the clock, you know, in our operation centers and things like that. About a year and a half ago we expanded that. And the idea was to do production during the day on that fourten schedule and do construction and maintenance on the back shifts.

So we have gone, you know, for a number of people to a 20 fourseven operation. Now it's certainly not at the level of what's going on during the day. And given the recent discussions with NNSA about producing more, we're looking at expanding that production to a seventen schedule. In other words, just Monday through Thursday, but every day ten hours a day. We're not there yet, it's just in the talking stages.

But we are expanding those hours, you know, because we're about, you know, at capacity for what we can do on a four ten schedule. So if we want to do more we have to utilize those other hours. But it's, you know, in a deliberate manner and so we're looking at, you know, all of the ramifications of that because there are those, you know, providing food and all those other services medical services that you need so, but that's the direction that we're going.

Thank you. Really appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Call. Any other oh, your microphone is still on. Not sure if that's why we're getting feedback or not. These are really sensitive microphones.

So Thank you for your good and partner member of a group tour. And we're going to be holding a meeting here about that and see if it's possible to maybe offer a tour to those folks of the lab then. So maybe we can chat about that at some point. But do you have any idea when they'll be actually producing pits?

At Savannah River? Just

checking.

It's not in the next decade, let's put it that way. So as you all know, and I really appreciate the feedback on, you know, what you heard at Savannah River because we have been trying very hard. You know, the NNSA's stated goal is 80 pits, as close to 2,030 as possible. And so that requires collaboration between our two, you know, lab and sites. And so, because Savannah River's timeline is moving out, we're now looking at, you know, how they can help us to produce more in that interim before they're actually producing.

And how we can help them to move their schedule and timeline along. So, and I think that's a unique thing, know, close collaboration between two of those types of organizations hasn't been something that's been pursued in the past. But we're trying very hard to work closely with them to, you know see how collectively we can get you know as close to the goal as we can. But for the short term certainly Lantel is the one pit production facility.

Well they were could not have been more complimentary.

Great. That's great to hear. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Herman.

Thank you, miss Davis. Or or the the question is the optics. Administration has paid us to do this stewardship that I we've had a long career. Now we're pivoting. I'm concerned about that because what else are we focusing on? I understand that we're going to be incorporating AI. NVIDIA's coming into play, quantum computing. What else is on the forefront for Lantel? Because right now, this pit is looming over us and our persona.

Yeah, so I'll tell you that's, you know, that's certainly in the forefront of my mind. Like I said, you know, we were born, the lab has been around for eighty years, you know, as a scientific leader and a research and development organization. And we cannot lose that legacy and that heritage. And so we talk about that frequently, you know, how we do the production mission and not lose our identity. And so I will tell you that that's first and foremost in my mind.

It's on the lab director's mind. You know, he emphasizes that every day. That, you know, we have to produce for today, but we also have to maintain that science and research and development capability for tomorrow. So, your concern is valid and it's certainly a concern of ours and we focus on it every day.

So I want to pull the string on that a little bit more. Okay. So if we're focusing on R and D, what other types of R and D are we focusing on? What else can we put as a feather in our cap?

I, you know, I don't think that we limit ourselves. You know, don't think that we put ourselves in a box and say we're focused on this thing. I mean, certainly the NASA administrator is visiting the lab tomorrow to talk about how we can support their efforts, you know, in the Artemis mission and then ultimately on to Mars. And so that's certainly first and foremost. The non proliferation effort, you know, how can we prevent other companies or how can we retrieve material that's in other companies.

So a lot of, you know, a lot of disparate efforts. I would tell you that none of those, you know, the demand for all of those other things that we do has not abated at all as the production mission has ramped up. So I think it's a, you know, it's a challenge for the lab and we're willing and ready to take that on that, you know, we cannot just focus on the production. Okay.

I just wanted to I

absolutely agree, and I have your concern for that.

Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Clinton. I'm seeing other so already touched on some of the things I wanna touch on, but I think just so I was the other counselor that was on the Savannah River tour. I went to the Augusta meeting, and I don't believe they knew we were from Los Alamos County when they were saying the nice thing. Maybe they knew that, you know, forum as a focus area that's there because we do have you know, there's a large, you know, new effort with the fusion. We have Kairos here, you know, space nukes. Try to make sure I mention all of the ones that are here. I'm not showing favorites. I think I might have caught most of them.

So I'm kinda curious. It would be good. I I had asked mister Waika about the numbers of people that are taking the buses just as some hard data on how successful that program is. Since people are telling you that they're concerned, they have the the commute is more than just a concern. They're I think that that's understating it.

So I think it'd be good to see if we can get some data on that and also, you know, how many people because at one point, a lot of people did want to not have to commute or commute as far. So what are those numbers now? Have they really changed? Or people kinda resigned themselves like there is not any housing closer, so they just aren't looking. So I think it would be good to know from your because I was an employee survey, and I can't remember off the top of my head the numbers, but it was on the order of, I think, more like thousands of staff, you know, like, couple thousand people maybe that were interested in in in something closer to their work.

And I know you do have satellite facilities in Santa Fe, but I think that would be interesting to know what the actual numbers are there. Something that I guess a couple of things that haven't come up from other counselors. So I think we brought this up before is about basically, renting of, you know, retail space for office use. So since we're sitting here in White Rock, there's actually you can't throw a stone and hit it, but it's not very far from here. The training center is one such thing.

And I know that kind of been a position that, you know, not gonna be adding any more space. But so have have you looked at any of the current space and its utilization and looked at any options, that might take some time to make any changes. And, obviously, there's sometimes a benefit to having no one in this office space, and there's office workers that helps with the retail. We don't have a lot of colocation currently. But is that something that you're actually looking at is how to help, you know, partner with the county to benefit, you know, local businesses, you know, work on the housing issue at the same time?

Are there any properties? Because I know we've talked about land transfer before, and that's not really your purview. So I'm not gonna ask you about that, but just the the rentals that you have and just some creative thinking on what might be we'd be able to do with those.

Yeah, so I will tell you we don't eliminate any options. We're looking at everything, every option that we can including like I say, you know, on the hill, off the hill, off the lab, on the lab, whatever we can do commercial construction you know lease to own types of things. We're really looking at everything and you know but I will say our focus is on you know how can we how can we get people off of the hill less traffic coming up here and the other thing that we're trying to do we lease a number of spaces both in Los Alamos and White Rock and in Santa Fe and those are you know how can we consolidate those you know can we perhaps you know look at one location where we could put up a new building and consolidate some of those leases so that we don't 12 or 13 or 14 leases spread out because those are not really you know financially the best offer either. So but nothing is off the table you know we have a team that looks at that and they look at really every

option. Okay. Well, just last question, an easy one. So when is the Omega Bridge gonna get replaced?

I just wanna get the the third power line up here and get that complete, and then we'll look at other things.

Okay. So it's still in, like, the five plus year, I think, window. Right? Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions, so we will see if there's any public comment. We have one person here. So come up and use mic. Just remember to state your name. We'll get the timer up for you.

How are you? I'm Sam Gartner. 191 Dome Road, DeJemus. And, I guess, you know, I have a lot of questions, but I wanna make a statement first. Cost of construction is $400 a square foot no matter where you go and how you do it.

I'm starting a subdivision on North Mesa, it's four acres, and I've been trying for two years to get workers, and I'm assured that if I get a crew, and at one point had 30 people working for me, Most of my former workers make about 80,090 thousand dollars a year at the lab. I mean, we could pay them $40,000 $50,000 a year, and that's construction standards. So you've out incentivized the construction industry and there's no going back. I mean, you're not going to change directions and not hire people making if

you could direct the comments to appear.

Yeah. It's really hard to speak to him and look at you guys.

It's like you should

really be speaking to me or yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Well, you can hear me. So, anyway, it's a huge concern. I mean, here I am putting another couple million dollars into your community and it's, well, it doesn't matter if you're getting $14,000,000 a year these guys.

It used to matter when you guys got a stipend, but now it's, you know, it's a drop in the bucket. So I would say the whole economic structure of Los Alamos has changed dramatically. On a dime, when there was an announcement that, I mean, peace through atomic strength instead of science, and your identity as a science based community is illegitimate now. It's gone. It's not coming back.

And what happens if somebody tries to bring it back? The next administration, I know Donald Trump likes nuclear weapons, and he's made this directive for you guys to fall in line, and you've done it. But hopefully we get the next guy that doesn't like nuclear weapons, and doesn't like the fact that Colorado River is running out of water, we're having a lot of problems just figuring out how to feed our people, and we're making nuclear weapons. And we're telling our best scientists that they have to join in or they can go somewhere else. So I mean that's my hope that somebody will do that, but where does that leave Los Alamos when you're all tooled up to make pits for new nuclear weapons in an already dystopian future that should be we should be forefront on taking care of the world's problems, which isn't nuclear warfare.

Was that the call?

Yeah. The three minutes went very quickly, so sorry.

So, and I'm just going to brag a little bit.

I've done Can

you just be really brief?

I'll be really brief. I've done maybe $100,000 worth of work at Lantel. I did all the dirt work for the Rue Lav facility. I could build that fire station with seven people in a year for about half the price, but way less than what the taxpayer has paid for that fire station. It's this simple construction. I'm wondering if the taxpayer, the American taxpayer, is getting their money's worth for all this new construction that is I've watched it every day.

I think we'll have to leave it there.

All right.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Comments. Okay. I don't see anyone else here.

Is anyone online?

I can check, chair. If you are online and want to make public comment, please use the raise hand feature. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, miss Staples, for being here again. So

Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it. Okay. Appreciate the collaboration. Thank you.

Okay. So now we're on to item six, which is public comment for items on the consent agenda. Do we have any members of the public that would want to comment on the consent agenda? And can you check on the line, please? I

can, chair. If you'd like to make public comment, please raise your hand. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. Thank you. So I don't believe we have any corrections to the consent agenda tonight. So is there a councilor interested in making a motion? Councilor Herman?

Thank you, chair. I move that council approve the items on the consent agenda as presented and that the motions on the staff reports be included for the record. Second.

Okay. So we have motion by councilor Herman. Second by councilor Neon Fulton. Not seeing any discussion. Still have councilor on the line. Right? Okay. So can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Haberman? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Rieger?

Yes.

Councilor Herman? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to item eight, introduction of ordinances. We have two tonight. So eight a is OR one one three zero dash two six.

It's incorporated County Of Los Alamos ordinance number seven fifty five. It's an ordinance proposing amending section article three section three zero five, subsection three zero five point four of the charter of the County Of Los Alamos to be submitted to the electorate for adoption rejection. So is there a councilor willing to read this ordinance into the record? Councilor Cole?

I introduced without prejudice incorporated County Of Los Alamos ordinance number seven fifty five, an ordinance proposing amendment to article three section three zero five section subsection three zero five point four of the charter of the incorporated county of Los Alamos to be submitted to the electorate for adoption or rejection at a general election on 11/03/2026 pertaining to standing boards and commissions and ad hoc advisory committees and ask the staff to assure that it is published as provided in the county charter.

Thank you, Councilor Call. So 8B is OR eleven twenty seven-twenty six. It's Incorporate County, Los Alamos, Ordinance Number 754. An ordinance granting a cable franchise to Comcast of FloridaMichiganNew MexicoPennsylvaniaWashington LLC to construct, operate, and maintain a cable system and public right of way and provide cable service within the incorporated county. Is there a counselor willing to read this one?

K. If you have a councilor Cole?

I introduce without prejudice incorporated county of Los Alamos ordinance number seven fifty four, an ordinance granting a cable franchise to Comcast of Florida slash Michigan slash Mexico slash Pennsylvania slash Washington LLC to construct, operate, and maintain a cable system in the public rights of way and to provide cable service within the incorporated county of Los Alamos establishing the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement and establishing certain remedies for the violation of the franchise and ask staff to assure that it is published as provided in the county charter.

Thank you, Councillor Powell. So now we're on to item nine, which is public hearings. We have three public hearings tonight. Nine a is CO0753Dash26 b, Incorporate County Of Los Alamos code ordinance number zero two dash three seven eight, an ordinance amending the code of ordinances of the Incorporate County Of Los Alamos by amending sections 30 eight-ninety two and thirty eight-three 15 of Chapter 38, Traffic and Vehicles Blame to the Penalty for Use of Handheld Mobile Communications While Driving. Miss Laurent?

Thank you, chair and counsel. Back in May, counsel adopted an ordinance related to distracted driving, specifically prohibiting hands requiring hands for use of cell phones, but also just reinforcing that distracted driving is an is a nuisance and a danger. As part of that process, we realized there was a missing reference in order to, connect the penalty to this ordinance properly. And so this is really a cleanup, to add that reference. And, I'm here. Chief Scambalone is online, and then, county attorney Lee Part's also here if you have any technical questions. Thank you.

Okay. Do counselors have any technical or clarifying questions on the ordinance? K. Not seeing any? Okay. Is there, any public comment on the ordinance? I'm seeing chamber miss Madison, can you check online?

Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised online.

Yeah.

It's not a technical clarification, but I think there may be two typos in the ordinance. The third whereas whereas has it says 28 dash three one five, and I think it should be 38 dash three one five. And then in the fifth whereas, I I think 38 dash one five should be 38 dash three one five.

Chair, righty, councilor Coe, we can certainly check those. I'll ask county attorney whether we need to do that before a motion or whether we can just take that under advisement.

So how many minutes will it take to check those? Chair and counsel, these these these issues are in the whereas statements, not in the ordinance. So it's not substantive? It's not a substantive issue. We can we can correct the ordinance.

We can correct the whereases later. As is later. If we need to? Yeah. They're not material. Need to recognize that in the motion either. No. Okay. Thank you for that. If it was in the ordinance, we would have to bring it back, probably. I'm not sure. But Any other questions with that? So is there a councilor interested in making a motion regarding the ordinance? Someone have that ready? Councilor Haberman?

I move that council adopt incorporated county of Los Alamos code ordinance number zero two dash three seven eight, an ordinance amending the code of ordinances of the incorporated county of Los Alamos by amending sections 38 dash ninety two and thirty eight dash three one five of chapter 38, traffic in vehicles relating to the penalty for use of handheld mobile communication devices while driving, and ask the staff to assure it's published as provided in the county charter.

Second.

Okay. So we have motion by councilor Haberman, second by councilor Cull. Do we have any discussion? Saying any okay. So can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Rieger? Yes. Counselor Hand? Yes. Counselor Haberman? Yes. Counselor Herman? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to item nine b, RE six seventy five-twenty six. It's Incorporate County, Los Alamos resolution number 20 six-eight, a resolution relating to the development of work of a workforce housing facility on County Parcel A8A and approving the execution and delivery of a memorandum of understanding relating thereto. And it looks like we have Mr.

Osborne. Good evening, County Council. Dan Osborne, Housing Special Project Manager. I'd like to introduce Resolution Number 26,208, approving the execution delivery memorandum of understanding between Los Alamos County and Madron Community Development Corporation, a 5013C nonprofit. This action fulfills the commitment established in the development agreements and the MOU formalizes between Los Alamos County and Madrone Community Development Corporation.

Under this agreement, Madrone will serve as the borrower and the owner of the project to finance the development of the parcel during the term of the debt. The project utilizes the nonprofit ownership model to minimize costs. As a nonprofit, the entity can access tax exempt bond financing to lower borrowing rates and operates at a significantly lower overhead than traditional for profit developers. Servitas will then intend to sell the property to Madrone and this entity will own and provide Servitas with the financing for the development, construction, and long term operation of the project during the term of the debt. After the operating cost and debt service are covered, any net cash flow from the project will be provided back to the county and applied as the county directs.

Upon the retirement of the bonds or the retirement of the debt, the property and all improvements and all future revenues will be reconvened to the county or a designated nonprofit set up by the county at that time. And a coordination agreement will be established between the county, Madron, and Cervitas to oversee the capacity regarding the construction management and financing of the project. And with that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. Does council have any technical or clarifying questions on this MOU? Okay. Councilor Gottman.

Thank you, Cheddar. Thank you, Mr. Osborne, for making more progress on this development. And you just mentioned it, and it's in the MOU. I think it was point number five about once the operating costs and the debt service costs are recovered, any net cash flows will then be directed to the county or a designee. Do you have a sense of, like, when that would be? Is the bond going to be a twenty year financing tool?

Right now, I think we're anticipating about a thirty five year debt period. That, of course, can change through time. If interest rates go down, we would be able to refinance out of some of that. We anticipate that could happen somewhere, you know, year fifteen to twenty. But we don't know.

But that's always the hope is to be able to refinance out of that and hopefully retire that debt as soon as we possibly can. With any excess revenue that's coming back into the project, we can also always reinvest that to pay the debt off sooner. So that would be something that would retire that debt a little bit earlier as well. Once we have that debt service retired, it would really be to the county to direct where we want that to go and whether that would just go back into the general fund and then be reallocated through that process, or perhaps at that time we have some sort of housing authority or some other mechanism in the county that might be able to utilize those funds. But since they're going through the nonprofit, during the term of the debt, they have to go back to a purpose of the nonprofit, which in this case is community development affordable housing.

Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. And, you know, of course, thirty, thirty five years none of us will be here. And who knows, there might be all kinds of whole new way of thinking about these things, so who knows what might exist. But something like a housing authority is maybe a common thing, or a housing trust, to kind of keep these kinds of efforts going, right, versus going into a general fund, but that'd be for

a future council Counselor to

Havreman, Chair Reidy, that's certainly sort of the long term thinking, that we get a couple of these projects a few more of these projects off the ground. We have a larger affordable housing stock, then there may be an appropriate time then to turn that over to a larger organization. Right now, CDD is more than capable of managing these projects at this level. But yeah, sometime we might love to have that problem that we need to outsource a little bit of that, but that's quite

a ways down the Road.

Okay. And then is this project receiving funds from the state?

Yes. Counselor Haviland, Chair Reidy, I'm actually very happy to report that we did an initial grant application and received about $3,000,000 We had asked for a little bit more. They were unable to oblige at that time. However, the state came back and contacted us. They had a couple of other projects that weren't able to be funded for a variety of reasons, largely not being shovel ready.

And they reallocated another $1,600,000 to the project. That money goes the way that the state is doing that grant is that money goes directly to Cervitas. It doesn't flow through the county, but they still have the same similar deed restrictions that we have. Those deed restrictions are just with the county instead of or I'm sorry, or with the state instead of with the county. So we have 98 additional units that have a permanent deed restriction. It's a little bit higher, but it's 120% AMI that they can never go above. So, almost 5,000,000 additional dollars through the state in addition to the 7,500,000 that the county has put in for deed restrictions.

Well, congrats and thanks on that. Kind of means that more than half of the homes in this development will have a deed restriction on them to make them more affordable, make it more accessible for workforce housing, etcetera?

Correct. We'll have a range from 60% to 120% AMI that are permanently deed restricted for the life of the project. And in addition with the financing model, we anticipate being able to keep all of those under 120% is the hope, just because the financing we don't have to chase investor profits.

And then, thank you. Your presentation covered my little question. Just had to make sure. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you,

councilor Abbott. Do have any other

questions?

So related to counselor Hammond's questions, I can click on a map showing all the projects, and then I can see how many units are will will be qualified at the different levels just so that we can communicate that ongoing basis, right, with the community. And then the other thing I was wondering about was, are there any other obstacles right now? Because I know has a very aggressive timeline, which I really appreciate. I think the community appreciates that. So are there any things that we need to be looking out for in terms of their, like, getting the next steps where the project actually break down?

Chair Reddy, that's a great question. And all of these development projects are just a series of solving small problems. Right now, we feel like we're ahead of all of the issues. And everything is kind of unfolding as we expected. And we continue to chip away at these different agreements and the different sort of project milestones.

One of the issues that we're working on right now is making sure that we're able procure appropriate insurance for the project. And we've as you may know, we've had some conversations with the New Mexico Self Insurers Fund in addition to Cervitas and looking at the open market and other providers for insurance. So I don't know that that's specifically a hurdle, but it is something that we continue to work on. Servitas right now is going back for their second blush on their final pricing. Pricing is coming in a little bit higher than we expected, but it is still within the budget that we anticipated for the total bond sale.

So we don't see any issue, but we do recognize that the sooner that we act, the quicker we'll be able to get those prices locked in. And mosque construction should have those final PGAL, which is the architect, will have the final construction drawings here in the next few weeks that will then lead directly into the final pricing through Moss, is the contractor on the project. And then Servitas will go out to sell those bonds, execute on those, and then we should be able to start rolling, hopefully, later this fall.

Well, that all sounds very good. So I don't think there's any other questions. Councilman.

Good to see you, mister Osborne. This is a dire question. I'm just gonna let you know that now. So if the project underperforms or fails, and I don't think it will because I know we've had, like, a gazillion conversations about it, what's the county's contingency plan?

Boy, that gets complicated. Councilor Neal Cohen, Chair Reidy. It's a great question. And the honest answer is we don't think this project is going to fail. And I don't mean to sound flippant in that, but we believe in the market study, we believe in the data that we've got, we believe in the growth that's happening at the lab, and we think that we're going to be able to meet the demands of the project. These are non recourse bonds. These will be sophisticated investors who are buying the project debt. There will be no recourse to the county on those. In that case, I will look to Alvin, Mr. Leipart, and we will start looking at the different avenues to us.

We do have a clawback within the development agreement. And then we go and we try to execute the clawback from the project and then we would have to make a decision of whether or not we push forward with Servitas to deliver if not this project, some similar project or if we just take it back and then the county take over and try to complete the project. So we do have a number of different contingencies that we can get that done. And we have some legal mechanisms within the development agreement to do that. But I do truly believe that we're going to get this off the ground and get this one going.

I concur. I just wanted to have a question on the record. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Naykland.

Okay.

Not seeing any other questions. So was there any public comment on this item? Not seeing anyone here. Is there anyone online? Ms. Madsen?

Sure, I can check. If you'd like to make a public comment, please raise your hand. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. Thank you. Is there a councilor interested in making a motion? Councilor Han?

Thank you, chair. I move the council adopt resolution number 26Dash08, a resolution relating to the development of a workforce housing facility on County Parcel 8888 A 8 A and approving the execution and delivery of a memorandum of understanding relating thereto. Second.

Okay. So we have motion by councilor Hand and second by councilor Herman. Is there any discussion this time? Not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Herman? Yes. Counselor Haberman? Yes. Counselor Cole?

Yes.

Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Hand? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

The record show the motion passes unanimously. So thank you for being here again.

Chair Ready Council. Thank you. Okay.

We're on to item nine c. It's RE0677Dash26. It's incorporated county Of Los Alamos resolution number 26 dash zero seven, resolution of support and funding commitment by the incorporated county Of Los Alamos, the local Main Street program as a partner with Los Alamos Main Street, a program of Los Alamos Commerce and Development Corporation. We have mister Isaac.

Hello, chair Reidy, members of the council. I don't have a presentation for you this evening. What's before you, tonight with this resolution is renewing, the biennial MOU, with, Los Alamos Main Street. Ms. Jacqueline Connolly, as well as George Marston, are here in attendance. And either myself or or our guests could answer any questions you may have.

Okay. So, are there any, technical or clarifying questions from counsel? No? So I think since no one else has a question So I know that the agreement is fairly general and, basically, that there's a work plan developed. Right?

So the work plan would specify the details. We're just authorizing this as an umbrella for that activity. Right? So but in terms of Main Street Futures, I guess, calling it that, what other opportunities are there for counsel to weigh in on what activities Main Street Futures is doing once we've authorized this umbrella agreement.

So, chair Reidy, members of the council, you mentioned the work plan. Staff has been working closely with, Main Street staff to get an approved work plan, in place, for this upcoming year, that was finalized in April. As you know, I believe you're a member of the Main Street Futures Working Group. The work plan is something that's discussed at those meetings. And Main Street also does an annual presentation to the council.

I believe that's another opportunity for council to weigh in on the activities of Los Alamos Main Street and shape both the priorities of future work plans and monitor progress towards those goals, throughout the year.

Okay. Because I I was a member of the Main Street Futures Committee, but I don't remember hearing much about it before I was on the committee at council meetings. So I understand why there's a presentation, but it seems like there might be so that none of that is in this agreement. The umbrella agreement doesn't say, oh, we go and talk about this with some periodicity to counsel.

Chair Reidy, the the current, agreement we have with Main Street states that it is gonna be discussed with Main Street futures to weigh in, and then, it gets approved by staff at the staff level. K. I will say, though, that I'm happy to share that with you when it does, from a communication standpoint. And I I will say that the Main Street group has been working towards tying some of their activities to council's economic development strategic goals. So I think that's helpful as well.

Part of the conversation council had with

Things like that that we can then use to track the performance against those goals of the work plan and the specific tasks to ensure that the county funds are generating a return on that investment year to year.

So at current, we don't have any of those metrics in place?

So this is the first year work plan where those metrics are included as part of the work plan. So no, we do not have any metrics currently, but we will have those moving forward.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So I think we have councilor Rieger. Do you have a question?

Yes, chair. I was always curious about the status of White Rock in the Main Street program. Do we need a separate Main Street program just for White Rock to help with its development?

Thank you, Chair and Councillor Reagor. I very much appreciate that that question was asked as a resident of White Rock myself. I spent yesterday all day in White Rock discussing initiatives and goals, focused efforts for our community with various business owners and property owners. And I can tell you there is a concerted effort for our Main Street to really put a lot of attention. And we've had a lot of support from New Mexico Main Street, who is a third partner entity with this MOU that is before you today who is interested in supporting Los Alamos County with some capital outlay funding for projects in White Rock.

I do believe that we have a unique situation. We're pretty unusual in terms of the 2,000 plus Main Street programs in the country. I might be one of the only ones with two districts, but we do believe that they should be partnered as closely as they are.

Do we need a separate MOU to focus on that? A separate relationship go ahead.

A separate relationship or a separate MOU would need to have a completely separate Main Street organization that you would contract with. The MOU is one component. We also part of the MOU states that we have a contract with the municipality, which we also have. And if you were to have a separate White Rock Main Street, you would need a separate organization to sponsor that and to approach you and go through an accreditation process. So it would take a little longer than the way that they adopted a second district under an existing Main Street.

Yeah. Is that would that be a positive thing we could do to improve the connection, you know, to to improve the movement in White Rock? Because I know that we end up always getting brought back to Los Alamos issues. Right? And how do we keep a a development entity focused on White Rock issues? Is that really do we need a new organization? I mean, just sort of split you guys up or something, or how do we do it? Or you haven't given any thought probably. But

I thank you, chair and counselor. To answer that question, I I feel strongly that you would want to have a conversation probably as a futures committee to discuss that further. I believe that the reason White Rock was brought under the existing Main Street District was because of the abilities and the capabilities of our organization as a whole and that the two entities need to work closely together. They are not totally separate city functions or what have you. And so there is actually a lot of support from the state And National Main Street for us to function as we do.

If you were to separate it out, everything would have to be completely separated, more than just a separate MOU. And then you would have to assign a separate pool of funding for that. And then a separate entity would have to come to the table with additional funds and resources, too.

Do you think that would help BlackRock at all?

I don't, actually. I think one of the things that has been really beneficial is that when we went through the process two years ago with our Main Street Futures Committee to update our economic transformation strategies, we were strategic in adding language about White Rock and to discuss the gateway that it is as a community for both Los Alamos and for the many national parks that we have access to through the way that our town is laid out. And I can't emphasize enough how much I appreciate Los Alamos County really digging into our MRA districts and establishing a platform and a program for all for both MRA areas to be able to apply to those fundings. And I have every confidence that we will see a quality MRA project in White Rock this year.

Oh, well, okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Rieger. Okay. Sorry,

Chair. I just wanted to have pulled up our service agreement with Main Street and for FY27 the professional service is our $287,818.16 For FY '27 is $287,818

Okay, 100

Okay, 7

you for that clarification. Thank you for that

okay. So it's good to have that corrected. Miss Brown?

Thank you, chair and councilor Rieger. I just wanted to kind of

Since it's more of a comment, I was gonna make a pitch for the the Main Street. I know I'd I'd wanted to go, but I really encourage councilors next year to be at least one to be available. I know counselor vice chairman went last year. So I think that's useful for counselors to be involved. And, also, appreciate the remarks about White Rock because I know, you know, we we established the MRA here, seems like, four years ago.

Maybe it was longer than that. But, no, just four just four years ago. So seeing a project there seeing a project here in White Rock, and I think you can throw a stone and hit the project from here. So I think that's important to show we're supporting redevelopment here in White Rock. And I think with that, can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Neil Pinton? Yes. Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Herman? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

Councilor Haberman? Yes. And councilor Cole?

Yes.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show motion passes unanimously. So I think it's probably this will take a little bit of time for the sign code discussion. So let's and I'll try to tap this the right amount. Let's take a a ten minute break.

That was that was So we're on to item 10, which is business. 10 AIs 21586Dash26. It's presentation and possible action in the temporary sign code revision. We missed Isaacson again for this item.

Chair, if it's okay, I'd like to just do a quick introduction. Yep. Counsel, I just wanted to tee this up, for mister Eicherzon a little bit just because it has been it does have a history that predates him starting with the county and I'm going to take you back two years ago when we had just adopted we had recently adopted a new Chapter 16 and we had also within that made some changes to the sign code in relation to Supreme Court decision that was mandating us to change our sign code based on we can't regulate content. So previously in our sign code what we had under temporary signs is certain types of signs were allowed, like real estate signs or directions to a special event. But other types of signs were not allowed in the right of way.

And that all went away with the supreme court decision that said, nope. No. If you're gonna you're either gonna allow temporary signs or you're not, and the we can only regulate the size of them, the duration, and the location. And those are the kind of the things that we can regulate. So what when the new chapter 16 was written, it it sort of addressed that and said, you can do temporary signs as designated in these maps, and then the maps were never adopted.

So what we had was no regulation of temporary signs in the right of way. And I want to clarify that what we're going to be talking about tonight is rights of way that the county has. There are other rights of way within the community. There is the Department of Transportation has rights of way for our State Route 4 for 502 Trinity Drive and those are not regulated by the county. They are prohibited.

And if to put a sign in a department of transportation right away, you need a permit, permission from them. So I'm really only gonna talk about county right of ways on county roads. And so the purpose of this two years ago was gonna be a real simple adoption of the maps two years ago because we just didn't get those maps in there. But then we realized that there was some other issues around that the maps of the locations that were the quote unquote election locations really didn't address some of these other signage like real estate signs like the sheriff posses breakfast, like farmers market, like an estate sale. The types of signs that go up and go down quickly.

What we've also seen since that time is a lot of other signs pop up in our right of ways. So we realized that the problem was a little larger than maybe our solution at that time was going to solve. And so then we had staff turn around and fast forward, mister Isaacson's bringing taking up this issue and has had one conversation with the planning and zoning, and we're here to you tonight to get, have some discussion midstream with you all because what we're trying to do is get some direction of what we think we're trying to regulate and how we wanna regulate, but also do it in a way that we think we can be successful with the operations piece. So with that, I will let mister Isaacson do his presentation. He's gonna repeat some of what I said, but I think it's worth repeating to make sure we're on the same page.

So thank you. I appreciate.

Thank you, Chair, members of the council. Danielle Valdez couldn't be here this evening. She's at a conference in Nashville. But I will provide a quick presentation reiterating some of the points Ms. Laurent made along the way, trying to sort of outline some of the issues we're facing when it comes to regulating and enforcing temporary signs in our rights of way, and present some options that staff has developed of how we might want to move forward.

We are really looking for direction this evening. The direction we receive this evening will then help us draft new ordinance language, so then we can take first to Planning and Zoning Commission, then back to this body for ultimate adoption. So next slide, please. Again, our purpose this is a presentation of identified issues with our current temporary sign regulations. And again, we're looking for feedback and direction that we can then use to draft any code amendments.

So here's some photos we recently took. You can see on the left there sort of the proliferation of temporary signs in some of our rights of way here in the county. And again, it's kind of all sorts of signs that we're seeing, everything from advertising signs to real estate signs to signs promoting local businesses. And one of the larger issues beyond just the sort of aesthetic concerns with the proliferation of these signs in parts of the county is these signs aren't well cared for, or there's not much stewardship of these signs over time. And inevitably, they sort of blow away and end up in some of our natural areas with the photos you can see there on the right.

And so we feel like there's a real need to sort of get a handle on this and put forward some reasonable legislation and regulation that would help us and help our residents understand where temporary signs can be placed. So again, our current temporary sign regulations. Table 48 in Chapter 16 establishes sign area allowances by zone district for temporary signs on private property. That ranges from eight square feet in open space zones to 30 square feet per linear foot of building, frontage, and commercial zones. So this is talking about temporary signs on private property. However, what we're talking about next slide are temporary signs in our rights

of

way. And here are some of the current standards, which is eight square feet max area with a max height of eight feet, sixty consecutive days max duration that these signs can be placed in the rights of way, no illumination. Then there's some safety concerns around blocking of sidewalks, ADA access, or extending into streets. You're not allowed to post these signs on street lights, stop signs, utility poles, or other utility structures. And then as we mentioned, as it's currently drafted, the right of way sign locations are referenced with an official zoning map.

However, those maps were never adopted as part of the previous Chapter 16 code revisions and adoption. So right now, it's unclear someone reading the code where they can or cannot place temporary signs in the right of way.

So

issues we're receiving a fair number of complaints about signage, temporary signage of the right of way. And the way that the ordinance is currently drafted, we really lack the tools we need to address them. So we don't have an enforceable placement standard. The duration is largely unenforceable due to just our inability to sort of track these things once they're in the field. You know, slightly ambiguous scope in terms of, not clear delineation between private property and rights of way.

And Chapter fourteen's just sort of or excuse me, Table 48 in Chapter 16 does not make that distinction either. And we don't have a clear removal requirement either for signs that are out there longer than the duration. As we mentioned previously, a lot of the changes to the sign code stem from a 2015 Supreme Court decision that really required content neutrality in regulation of signage. So we can no longer differentiate between the sheriff posse sign or the t ball sign and any other sign that's out in the right of way. So, you know, we have to the rules must apply equally to all signs regardless of message.

So in terms of staff's recommendations, we recommend restructuring section sixteen-65F to clearly distinguish the standards applying to temporary signs on private property these would be things for new businesses that are opening, things like that from the standards applying specifically to these temporary signs in our rights of way that's in the areas buffering county roadways. So some of the recommendations that we think are fairly straightforward, keeping the eight square feet max area for right of way signage, however, adding in some dimensional restrictions, so that would be a 48 inches max dimension in any one direction, and then requiring that they be only 48 inches top of sign from finished grade so that they're not too high and causing any visual obstruction. In terms of duration removal, we're recommending that we keep the sixty consecutive days. However, put in some clear language about the required to be removed within two days of expiration of the sixty day period, to codify county staff's ability to remove those signs that are out there beyond the sixty day duration, and then to include an exemption for signs placed for short periods of time. So that would be twenty four to forty eight hours.

That was something that we can talk about in a second. There was some discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission about what that time frame should be. But this would be to create an allowance for, at certain intersections, the placement of a open house sign or a farmer market sign or something like that. Those signs tend to be placed for the day. And so there's not the same concern around those that we're seeing with some of the other signs that's placed for a very long time and not well cared for after they're placed.

So then we get to the question of where should temporary signs be allowed. Status one or excuse me. Option one is is to keep the status quo. Obviously, that's not the approach staff recommends. We see the sort of the current condition as being somewhat problematic. We're getting calls from residents. So we think there's something that should be done. Option two, sort of called the Santa Fe approach. City of Santa Fe disallows all temporary signage in their rights of way. We also staff also doesn't recommend this approach.

I think it represents too significant of a departure from how things have been done historically in the county. So we think there's probably a more nuanced approach to how we can deal with this issue. So looking at option three, it's really about adopting the designated temporary signage zones contemplated currently by section F6. But as I mentioned earlier, these were never mapped and and formally adopted. So that would identify specific locations in county rights of way where they would be permitted all year round.

The map would be adopted as part of the new ordinance. It's easy to enforce, and this is why staff really likes option three, because it's clear when signs are placed outside of these designated zones that they can be they're in violation of the ordinance. It can be removed. In terms of the restrictions that would remain, obviously no signs on utility poles, no blocking sidewalks creating issues with ADA access, no site triangle obstructions. That would mean no placement, say, in the center of roundabouts.

And then lastly, in this option, the short duration exemption that we just discussed. Moving on during election cycle, you know, election sign, regardless of its message. And then, obviously, prior policy, the T ball Organizations can place signs in the designated zones for up to sixty days. But after that time, they must come down within two days of the expiration of the six day period. Again, staff really likes this approach because the rules are simple, and they don't require any reading of the sign or trying to understand sort of are we within a certain period of of a county sponsored election.

And so here are the the designated temporary signage zones that were put forward as part of the last update to chapter 16. There's one on North Mesa along San Ildefonso Road. The area along Trinity Drive that's been used historically is identified. Thank you for highlighting that, Ms. Madison.

And then there's two zones in White Rock, one along Rover Boulevard near the intersection with Longview, and then another one at Sherwood Boulevard also near the intersection with Longview. So that was option three. A slightly more nuanced option would be adopting designated temporary sign zones for all year round with the added additional areas to be used during election period. So all the I all the zones that we just looked at plus some to be identified areas during the periods before any county elections. And so, you know, these would be areas, you know, maybe traditionally used for political signs that aren't these areas that we identified on the previous map.

You know, again, signs placed outside designated zones in the right of way, are in violation of the will be subject to removal. All the existing right of way restrictions that I mentioned, previously would remain, and then also the short duration exemption that we've discussed would apply in this scenario as well. So how this works, as I mentioned, during periods around county elections, these additional areas can be used for temporary signage in addition to the areas for year round use. I think it's important to note here that these additional sign areas would still available to the TBAL and other local organizations. So we can't restrict them simply to election signage.

Obviously, would be a content a noncontent neutral approach, but it would create additional areas where election signs could be placed. You know, any signs out there for longer than sixty days would still have to come down. You know, these rules, staff isn't is is as in favor of this approach simply because the rules are less simple. They're still enforceable, but they're just not as straightforward as the the option three that we just discussed. One of the things that came up in the planning commission conversation was, you know, with option four and with option three for that matter, looking for a slightly different location for signage on North Mesa.

The area previously identified as San Delfonso Road presents some challenges. And currently, the area around the roundabout is used heavily for signage. Staff recommends using location where there's a generous shoulder on either side of the road where folks could safely pull over and place a sign. That Santa Ana location doesn't provide that nor does the area immediately adjacent to the roundabout. So as I mentioned earlier, we did take this item to planning and zoning commission last month.

I think there was broad recognition of the aesthetic and visual impact temporary signs are having in our rights of way. One commissioner did ask, you know, if there really was a need to do anything, of suggesting that the status quo was acceptable. There was support for option four, but, again, there were some questions on whether or not the North Mesa location along San Jose Delfonso Road that was previously identified should be moved closer to the roundabout. There was broad support for the short duration exemption. However, there was some differing opinions around how long that should be.

So some like twenty four hours, some like forty eight hours, and at least one member of the planning commission questioned if it should even be a little longer than that. And then there were some questions about how we would implement and operationalize these new changes and and how that would impact enforcement. And so next steps, as I suggested earlier, tonight we're really looking for input and direction from counsel. Once we have that, staff will begin drafting code language. We've already drafted some language to address some of the more straightforward changes.

But in terms of the overall concept, we're really looking for some direction from you all this evening so we can get to start working on incorporating those recommendations and changes. Once we have things drafted, we'll return to planning and zoning commission for a formal review and a recommendation back to county council. And then we will incorporate any feedback or edits we get from planning commission, and bring those to county council. We would really like to get this completed this fall. And I think, you know, based off how things are progressing, I think we can meet that that deadline.

So lastly, for discussion, some questions we've queued up. Really looking for some feedback on which support or which approach, excuse me, council supports, some feedback around size and height standards. Not sure where that punctuation came from, but anyways. And then, you know, some feedback on the proposed zone locations just confirming that you all feel like those are appropriate. Again, asking around asking about additional areas.

That's really a difference between options three and four. Do we want to see additional areas coming online in election season? And then looking for some feedback on first. Again, not sure where this punctuation is coming from. But should we incorporate the short term duration exemption? And then for how long of a time frame? Again, twenty four, forty eight, or maybe even something slightly longer. So with that, I'll stand for questions, and appreciate your feedback. So I know, ordinarily, I'll let

all the counselors speak first, but this is really bothering me. Why are we talking about election signs differently than any other sign since we can't regulate them differently? I mean, shouldn't it just be signs in the right of way? And that's isn't that the proper way of thinking about this?

Yes. We can regulate based on time on time and manner and place. You can measure it based on elections. But when that sign area is opened up Right. It's opened up to any

It's opened up to any sign. So it's like our thinking could incorporate election season, but there's nothing in our discussion that really should focus on election signs per se. Is that correct?

That's correct. But I think the county can recognize that there have traditionally been areas in this town where where election signs have been placed. Well, we have to If you want to preserve that, you can only allow those

to be open. I I just wanted to clarify because I think it's like we're getting off on the wrong foot by just talking about election signs because we're we shouldn't be regulating signs based on what they say. We're not. We're not. It's like we shouldn't even be talking about election signs being different than any other sign. There just are all kinds of signs people can put up and where do you wanna have them. And you wanna specify them in the days. So that was, like, I I that was really bothering me about the topic. But so I'll let other counselors see if there's anything bothering them, or they're like, well, everything they've heard. Okay. We'll start with councilor.

Thank you, chair. Thank you for that presentation. I, as always, kind of wonder how this is gonna affect the small business community. In the last couple of years, we've seen a lot of them invest in those kind of feather signs and that kind of thing. And I'm just wondering what happens there and how that's enforced.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, Councilor Herman. So feather signs, things of that nature, those would be addressed through the regulations for private property. And so businesses would have the opportunity to place those signs on private property. They would be limited in their ability to place those signs in the county rights of way. And so, you know, currently, I'm sure there's, businesses that are using, rights of way, whether they be county or NMDOT. So that practice would be impacted by these changes. However, they would still have the ability to place those signs on private property in front of their businesses.

Thank you.

Councilor Ann, did you have a question?

Thank you, chair. I have a few questions. To follow-up on the feather signs, one of the things that that I'd like to mention is that if they are going to be placed closer to the property, that doesn't really work for what the feather sign is there to do, which is to get people's attention to say, hey, our business is open or whatever, you know. And for some small businesses, it might really help with reminding people, hey, you know, maybe I should go to this business, but it's not necessarily their property. Fact, they may even be leasing a space out of another facility that, you know, they don't own.

So, you know, I just hope that we're able to consider, you know, things like that and how we're impacting, you know, businesses when they put something like that up. I don't really see that we have a lot of abuse of that around the the county, but I could see where that would be somewhat hurtful to a small business if they felt that that was really going to help gain attention with the community. So some of the other things I'd like to mention is, do we have any kind of restriction on using those standard t posts, you know, and and how far you can drive those t posts down into the ground. Because those t posts are like six feet tall. We're talking about a four foot max, which means that you'd have to probably place the sign lower on the t pose.

But if you're saying even the t pose have to be at 48 inches, you cannot pound those things in. I I know for a fact because we were just trying to do that recently. So, you know, I I would say, you know, can we have some sort of exemption when you're using something like that if the t posts are even, something that you can use?

Sure. Righty, councilor Hin. So there's no regulation on the sort of maximum mounting depth of the signage. So if you were inclined to pound those t posts, you know, down as far as you could, there's nothing restricting you from doing that. We you know, what we're putting forward tonight is is open for discussion. You know, we're looking for feedback. So if it was council's pleasure to allow sort of the mounting sort of, you know, armature or whatever it is, to extend beyond 48 inches hardware, you know, we can include language.

I I'm just thinking that that's the standard thing that you're gonna find to buy. Mhmm. And and it's hard to pound those things in, you know, and I I tried it myself and I can't get it in a foot, but other people have tried to get them in and they they get about a foot down. These are strong people.

Absolutely. And I think it's probably better that, you know, depending on the location, utilities, things like that, we probably don't want people trying to drive these t posts deep into the ground. So it's better that they're probably mounted at a shallower depth. You know, I think the thought in sort of putting forward these suggestions was, you know, the more standard kind of type of wire frame you might use on, say, a garage sale sign or

You can't even get those in. Believe me.

Yeah.

Unless it rains

Yeah.

You can't get those things in. They bend.

No. So that's great feedback to to have a better understanding of sort of how folks are placing the signs, what they're using to do that, and how the regulations and sort of accommodate that kind of common practice.

And then, you know, when they can't get the signs in, then they're bending in the wind, then they blow off, and then you see them in the in the gullies.

Absolutely. And I think that's one of the as some of the photos early on the presentation suggested, I think that's one of the issues we're really trying to address as well as as sort of science blowing around and and ending up in in the bottom of canyons and things like that. So it's good to know that, you know, some of the challenges of using the maybe less sturdy mounting hardware.

Right. So

one of the other things I'd like to mention is a case where we have special events. And you had mentioned some of the temporary signs like let's say somebody has a yard sale. It may last for a weekend and so they would have it, you know, have the option to have it there for forty eight hours. But we could have all sorts of kinds of special events where we maybe need directional signs with arrows or whatever to get to certain events out on North Mesa. You've got a mud pit volleyball or whatever.

I mean, I think that's only weekend. But I'm thinking there may be some kinds of events that last longer than a couple of days that maybe you wanna keep those signs up longer. And so maybe we could have some caveat in the way we, you know, construct the language for special events that, you know, you have a time frame before and after the special event, you know, you have to remove those signs within that time frame of that special event. And I don't know if, you know, the county has to give permission for certain special events, you know, but but it could be tied to something like that. Unless it's on private property, then, you know, it I would think that we it would be nice if we could still allow our citizens to put up signs or whatever to any kind of special event.

Sure, righty. Councillor Hinton. So excellent point. I think that is falls into the category of these short duration type events and signage that we would want to be able to accommodate. You really need that directional signage at those key intersections to guide you And to so rather than creating a system where all of our intersections are available to signage at all times, we thought that some sort of time based exemption would work.

This question of is one or two days enough time for that exemption, this is a similar conversation we had at Planning and Zoning Commission. But I do like your suggestion of tying it to special events. We do permit most of our special events in the county, and we could create a tack on something about signage to that process and create something that allows signage for those specific events that are permitted to the county to remain for a slightly longer period of time understanding that they'd be removed within x number of days after the event. So that's just certainly something we can explore.

Okay. And and, you know, some of the other examples are, like, you know, we have movie companies coming to town and they'll put those directional arrows with the black and and yellow signs and and they post them to our our posts or light posts and things like that. And, you know, are we going to now make them post them on a post instead of a, you know, a structure that's already there? Because I I've always seen them on another structure that was already existing.

So that's another excellent question. Know, under our current standards, that practice should not be allowed. It's clear in our code that using things like stop signs, utility poles, things like that, you're not allowed to use that for signage, fences, things of, you know, county owned fences, things like that. So that's a current practice that actually should not be allowed and something we should think through and and how we might want to address that moving forward.

Yeah. I just haven't seen any recently, but I I noticed that I see them all over New Mexico. And and that's basically how they place those signs. Know, other special events that I'm thinking about is, you know, you could have maybe a church retreat or something like that where it's not a county event or anything like that but maybe it's going to last a week. And they want directions of how to get

there, especially Mr. With their people in Leipart, I think, wants to jump in. I think one thing we have to keep in mind in all of these sort of in devising all of these different sort of strategies and and accommodations for the different type of signage is just stay focused on the sort of content neutrality aspect of all of these rules. And so, you know, we have to be sensitive to that and thoughtful about that as we are sort of navigating some of this. And so that will present some opportunities and also present some challenges and restrictions of how we sort of accommodate these different situations that may occur around signage.

And so we're happy to look into those things, but ultimately, we may not be have you know, be able to accommodate every scenario due to the sort of nature of how we can regulate in the county based off that supreme court.

I I guess, you know, to more to be more generalistic, I would say maybe we could think about having some flexibility on that time frame of twenty four to forty eight hours, you know, based on certain special events that may be happening where people need directional signs or whatever that that we're able to give, you know, a flexible time frame based on that. And and then lastly, I just wanna say that the area that is designated on San Ildefonso by the soccer fields, I don't think it's very effective. I'd like to see it moved over by the golf course with roundabout. That's I have.

Thank you, council member Hin. So that was similar feedback we got from our planning and zoning commission, and that's why we put out a slightly different location on North Mesa farther to the east. There's you know, we really wanna go out there and look and make sure it's an area where there's adequate shoulder for someone to pull over to place a sign, especially if they're gonna be there for a while pounding in a t post. And also making sure that the grade sort of maintains that sort of street level. That way you have the visibility.

And so we've been looking for those two conditions and then looking for an area relatively close to one another on either side of the roadway to sort of catch people traveling in both directions. And so that's kind of what we were suggesting with that image we we shared earlier that may or may not be the most perfect location. But in terms of their sort of linear distance, we sort of used the existing area on Trinity Drive to sort of kind of approximate what's a reasonable amount of space. So yeah. So those may shift a little bit. And and if and if council has some more specific feedback on where those should be, we'd happily take that and and and shift things around to find the optimal location.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. If I can answer something, mister Leiper, did you wanna weigh in on some of those topics?

Sure. Thank you. And I just want to, Reed v. Town of Gilbert was a 2015 case that no local government attorney in the country is happy about because it's created a lot of confusion and difficulties. And you naturally want to regulate signs based on what they say because that's what a sign does. It says something. Yeah. But we can. So and the and the shorthand is if you have to read it to regulate it, it's unconstitutional. So how do you know it's a special event sign?

You have to read it. So you can't just say special events. You've got to say any sign. Anybody who wants to put a sign, whether it's a special event, diamonds for sale, we buy junk cars, they all have to be treated the same. So if this special event thing, it can't be characterized as a special event thing. It's just you have the ability to place signs of these dimensions in these places for this amount of time. No. Doesn't matter what they say. And if we try to to say special events or church functions or that's the whole fact pattern that Reed B. Town and Gilbert came up with.

And it's a it's not a great case because, I mean, it it's thrown every sign code into the country into, peril. And it's been a real struggle to write something that's not content based that satisfies the average citizen in a community. So we're kind of up against the Supreme Court versus, like, common sense in the community. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court usually wins on those arguments. So that's kind of where we are.

But, yeah, it's gonna be really difficult. And you see the tendency. You wanna go for that special event sign and say treat it differently. But you gotta read it to regulate it and therefore it's unconstitutional. So that's the struggle that's been going on in a lot of municipalities trying to write a sign code. And sometimes you end up with the Santa Fe option. That's really easy. Right? So but trying to get this nuance so it's constitutional and,

you know, meet sort of common sense community expectations is is the difficulty. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Leipart. I was thinking the same thing. I had to read the sign to know it a special event. So that seems pretty And councilor Rieger has been, I think, waiting to ask a question.

Thank you, chair. So there's a lot of areas like in in White Rock where the the the right away is enormous, and the places where the signs have to be set back are so far that a business is almost invisible already. So I was wondering now that might be under state regulation as well, but I do know one of the businesses there that was in turmoil and and fighting with somebody, some regulatory body over her temporary signs and and going back and forth. And I always heard this complaint when I went around talking to businesses. And then eventually, it was resolved in a typical way where the the business went under, and now we no longer have to fight over the temporary sign of Whiterock.

She's no longer trying to put up anything. So some of these places are very hard to see. And so without a a sign in a right of way, the business has no visibility. And, I I think that's a critical problem in in some of our parts of the county. And then the other one so this could have really serious implications.

And then in the other one, was a little confused over your part there about signs on private property. You were you were limiting what you would call temporary on private property as well. Is that what you're doing? Because there are the problem the permanent sign code is so tough that a lot of people don't wanna do an engineering review, So they leave, you know, a temporary sign up, you know, that is some vinyl thing with, you know, 10 feet wide, and that is their sign. They leave it up because they've never gotten through the the permanent sign part of the code.

And, they don't wanna hire an engineer, and they don't wanna prove that this thing's not gonna knock a wall down and fall on someone's head. But in the end, they, they never get through that part of it, and they just the temporary sign seems to last forever. So it it sounds like you that you were leaning into the definition of temporary sign, which would include some private property arrangements, And that could be really, really difficult on small businesses. And I'm I'm really worried about unexpected implications of the changes you're talking about. And, particularly, it was like your third view graph where you mentioned about private property.

So I I wonder if you could clarify that a little bit. You know? Did you intend to talk about private property in there at all?

Chair councilor Reeder, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to sort of clarify some earlier comments. So we currently have temporary sign regulations on private property for many of the conditions that you referenced in your comments and your question. We see those as largely working and don't intend to make significant changes to the existing temporary signage standards for private property. I think what we're recommending we do is with these ordinance changes is to really delineate the difference between how we regulate private property signs versus right of way signage. And so the code right now isn't clear make a clear distinction between the two in terms of the dimensional requirements and things like that.

And so, no, we're not you know, it's you know, I don't think we're contemplating major changes. However, I will say the scenario that you laid out of the sort of temporary sign that becomes a permanent sign currently isn't allowed by our our county code. And, you know, I think we probably, you know, don't wanna move in a direction where we have more sort of, you know, vinyl signage that's out for long extended periods of time in in the county. You know, I think we really do wanna encourage businesses to move towards more permanent signage after a period of time. You know, those temporary signs for private property are really things like grand opening, sales, things like that, but they're not intended to be out there forever.

So you have eight feet maximum area. Does that apply on all private land? No. Well, it's listed here. It's not part of the ROW rules. It's just listed as a separate rule on your view graph, which is like the I can't tell the number of the view graph. It was view graph five?

Yeah.

It's not clear at all what you're talking about.

Sure. And I I apologize for any lack of clarity. So for instance, on a commercial property, the square footage allowed for a temporary sign on, say, a commercial property, a building facade, is a is a based off the size of that building's facade. It's a it's sort of a formula based off the business frontage. So that's not limited to eight square currently. And so that's how you derive a sort of maximum allowable area of of temporary signage on, say, a business.

So the eight square feet is only in rights of way? Correct. Okay. So the no illumination rule, is that also only in rights of way?

GREGORY That is it certainly applies to rights of way. I'd have to review the code to verify whether or not it's also true of private property, although I do believe that is true. Again, the temporary signs we're seeing on private property tends to be things like, as we mentioned earlier, feather signs, vinyl signage, things like that. It tends not to be illuminated signage, but I can verify whether or not an illuminated temporary sign would be allowed on a private business.

Well, I'm a little confused about some of the text, and I'm, in general, worried about, you know, accidental implications of of what you're saying here because it might be interpreted by somebody else and the staff a little differently in the future. I'm a little very concerned that the writing of such an ordinance can lead to lots of other effects that you didn't intend. But I'll I'll drop that for right now. Thank you very much, chair.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Rieger. Any other questions, councilor Goel?

So I'm I'm I'm generally leaning toward option four, mainly because if we if we do have designated sign zones and then around election time, people put up a ton of election signs and block other people's signs. That's not gonna be that's not gonna go over well. You know? So adding adding additional temporary zones during election periods and opening that up to whoever wants to use them, think, is fine. And it might it would kinda spread the signs out a little bit more.

I do think we need more sign zones that are more strategically placed. We've talked about the one on North Mesa that that doesn't do a whole lot for any businesses or even for elections for the most part. I am opposed to any signs along the golf course where we have deer crossing on a regular basis or any other area where we know we have regular deer crossings. I think there are anything that distracts from or causes safety concerns. Think we need to oppose that.

So within a certain distance of intersections, definitely not in roundabouts. We don't want people distracted trying to read a sign while they're going through an intersection or approaching an intersection or a roundabout. The temporary signs, yeah, I think we're gonna have to allow some of that. I think we just have to figure out how to regulate it because you see garage sale signs and other things. And I don't know if we're gonna have I mean, I I mean, I I guess I I do question a little bit how how much signage do we really need.

I mean, you can put an address and people can find it now. They use their GPS in their car for the most part. And so it's the signage, I don't know if it's if it's as necessary as it used to be, but it's something that would be interesting to hear from the public on. Do we really need signs? And I guess one of the one of the things I was thinking of is we were talking about this.

Well, will this sign code apply to the overpass signs? That's one thing. I think we need to probably address that. And then when you have kids who are doing a car wash and they're standing out on the corner holding signs, does a sign does a temporary sign code apply? So those are some interesting ideas to think about. And then do we have a littering ordinance? Because you know what? It'll be really easy to identify whose sign it is that flew away into the canyon and just impose a a fine on that person for not picking up their sign. Just saying. You don't have to answer that.

I think that addressed one of the things I've I've been at since I sat through the planning and zoning meeting and kept my mouth shut at that time. One of the things I've been thinking as I've been driving around is where could we put signs? An area that looks that just looks like it might work would be on Diamond Drive by by Pueblo Complex. There are some utilities there. We'd have to check that.

But you could do it potentially on both sides of the road. The county owns land across the street as well. So those, that might be some good opposing areas to look at. And I just wonder what other areas might there be, so if we took a drive around and could probably identify other areas. So thank you.

Sure. Thank you. Chair,

commissioner Cole, if I could ask just one or councilor Cole, excuse me. If I could ask one clarifying question. When you said more and more strategic locations, were you thinking those being the sort of additional locations or the sort of year round locations?

Additional locations that are available year round.

Gotcha. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Cole. And, councilor Hebmann?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Isaacson, for giving us the opportunity to comment on this and planning and zoning before us. And I did listen to that meeting to kind of hear what all the commissioners had to say. I think Councillor Cole brings up an interesting point of consideration as far as locations where signage might be allowed, taking into account driver distraction and unintended consequence of, you know, ramifications of distracted driving and wildlife mobility. So on that point, her comment about the Pueblo because one of the things you were asking for is some locations to consider, I might as well comment on that.

You mentioned that we're on Diamond, we're Pueblo School, Pueblo Complexes. The challenge I would have with that is there's just so many curb cuts in that area and so much traffic turning left from either direction towards urban park in that area. Whereas there's not as many curb cuts on Diamond, you know, just Range Road, Club Road. They do have the fire station there too. That's a consideration.

So I think those are the kind of in the weeds that got to get figured out when you're, But I think the point that Councillor Cole made is really worth taking into consideration as you roll this out and pursue public comment as well. I noticed at the PNC meeting, Commissioner Brewell asked if you'd had a chance to speak with any of the event organizers in town, sports organizations, etcetera. So that might be like the Arts Council, Chamber of Commerce, Main Street, sports organizations like Little League, you know, to see if they had any input for you. And you thought that was a good suggestion, but I didn't know if you'd had a chance to do that yet. If you had, I was curious what you heard.

CHRISTIAN Chair, Councillor Haberman, we have not had a chance to follow-up with many of our local community organizations, sports teams, things like that. It's certainly something we want to do as we get into drafting. I think we thought it was important to get in front of you all to sort of get some high level guidance on which approach to take. And then, you know, as we start moving through the process of getting an ordinance drafted and put together, really start getting more feedback from, you know, community folks who are using our rights of way for signage and try to really understand what works for them as we're putting something together ultimately for consideration.

Thank you. And I mentioned Chamber of Commerce just because of their business members, some of whom we've seen put up signs to promote their businesses. I don't necessarily think that's the proper use of a public right of way. But I also know we only need to regulate in terms of place, manner and time, I think, is all we can do. As a realtor here for eighteen years, I have a lot of experience with signs.

And as a candidate here four years ago, I've worked more experience. So I think the realtor community would be one you might want to reach out to. I always had a pet peeve about my fellow realtor colleagues who would put directional signs on street signs. Because I found I know why they did it, because there's usually not dirt in those areas to pound the sign into, so they would just zip tie it to a, you know, over here on Bryson Meadow, for example. But then that impedes pedestrian accessibility on that sidewalk.

And it also can just be a distraction at an intersection, where also kids might be crossing to go to school. So I just always had a kind of heartburn on that. So I also think in this day and age, you know, compared to when I first became a realtor in the year 2000, compared to now, as Councillor Cole pointed out with GPS, I just don't think the directional signs add as much value as they did twenty years ago. So curious to see what current active realtors think on that, and promoters of events. I do know that when I travel around and for example visit my kids in the Bay Area, there's no signs anywhere.

And you don't even realize how cluttered it is where you live, because you're so used to it, until you go somewhere else and you don't see it, and you go, God, that is just nice. And yet we would see houses listed for sale, but there were no directional signs to them. Because if you're out looking for a house, go on Zillow or you go to your favorite realtor's website. So, my knowledge is in the realtor area, so I'm kind of focused on that. I guess if if we really are gonna be just content neutral, where if you have to read it to regulate it, it's unconstitutional, then I don't know how you handle exceptions.

And I guess I was a little confused on that during the P and C presentation, and I am still tonight, like how you handle exceptions for short term events. Because that's just a content thing. And if you say, we'll make an exception if you're just promoting farmer's market for the day or a garage sale for the day or an open house, how can that be regulated differently? And you could argue, those are just twenty four or forty eight hour things, and somehow we'll figure it out. But then what if you want to promote the event? Like, hey, be ready for kite festival for the next seven days, or be ready for the pancake breakfast at the posse shack. So I just think that's something to be thought through.

Time, please, and manner.

Sorry. My screen timed out. Let me go back to the notes, please. I know there was some talk about p at PNC about the you know, some some people might could maybe try some tricky maneuvering to get around some of the the time durations we might wanna put restrictions around. You know, if there's a sixty day limit, what's to keep someone from putting a sign up, taking it down on day 59, going back on day 65 and putting it up again.

I know that chair Easton, Commissioner chair Easton said something about, like at the lemon lot, people get a permit for the car and then the expiration date for when that car has to leave the lemon lot is like on the back of their permit or something. And you commented about, you could put an expiration date on the back of a sign when you get your signed permit. I thought that was a good idea. So I think those are I kind of I don't know. It's mostly those comments, guess. Some questions rolled in there. In general, I'm in favor of us doing something. I I personally just don't like the clutter. I would rather our town be prettier and not have all that. I'd rather it be safer when you're driving or walking sidewalks and rights of ways.

And I'd rather people just not be tense about it. Oh, and I know I also noticed at the PNC, someone asked you how many complaints you've received. I think you said you'd gotten a five to 10 calls in the last couple months. I would bet there's tons more people agitated about it than the number of calls you're receiving, just based on my own anecdotal comments I receive. Plus we would get them at REMAX.

I mean people would call us and be pissed about someone having a sign in a certain place. And our office manager would have to tell people to go take those signs down. So you wouldn't get them at the county, but we got them at our office. So, in between options three and four, I would favor option four at this point, where we have more locations and then an augmented number of locations during campaign season where anybody could put aside because, again, we can be content neutral. But then I just make sure we keep this simple so it can be enforced and that we have the resources to do it without creating a whole lot of enemies in the meantime. Thanks.

Yeah. I'd

like to pull the string a little bit on what counsel Haverman said. So given the current code is unenforceable, there's no maps, no tracking, no removal requirements, How will the proposed revision be practically enforced without adding a permitting or a tracking mechanism? Because when I heard the permit that you normally get for the LIM, logically that makes sense to me. But how do we enforce it without the permit or to track it?

Chair, Councilor Newklin. So, we've been having some internal discussions around that exact topic. I think the direction that we are sort of leaning and starting to explore is not a permitting system per se, but more of a registry, where someone who wanted to put a temporary sign out in the community in a allowed designated area would go online, fill out a quick little registration form. They could also come into the office and do it if that was their preference. And then that would generate a registration number, and then they would be required to put the date and that registration number on the write it on the sign.

And that way, we would have a sense of how long that sign's been out there and could referee that sixty day duration that time. I don't think we want to charge a permit fee or anything for these types of signs, but we do want some tracking mechanism. And so we think an online registry would give us the sort of tracking capabilities we would need to effectively enforce. So the registry combined with designated allowable areas gives us, far better tools than we currently have when it comes to enforcing temporary signs and our rights of way.

And then how will the community be made aware of this process?

That's a great question. I think there'd be a lot of communication coming out of my department, the county overall, about the changes to the sign code, the new requirements of folks wanting to put signs out there. I think as we encountered signs that maybe weren't participating in the registration the way we wanted them to, some follow-up education on the part of our code compliance team, making sure people know what is expected of them if they're placing signs out in the right of way, and just over time trying to move the sort of behavior towards the direction we'd like to see in terms of the signage around the county. You know, it it'll be a bit of a work in progress once we make the changes and try to implement this new system, but I think, over a reasonable amount of time, I think we can get people sort of playing ball with us. To, counselor Haberman, your point about sort of people, you know, maybe trying to fudge the rules or getting a little tricky, you know, that's something we deal with sort of in every area of enforcement at the county.

And so, you know, if people want to break the rules, I think they're gonna find a way to do it. I think our goal is to devise a program that is easy to follow, not too burdensome, and sort of encourages as much participation as possible. You know, if we do encounter people trying to maybe skirt the rules, we can deal with those situations when we find them. But we think, like, this registration system that I'm describing, plus having designated areas and things like that, really makes, it easier for people, a, to follow the rules and us to enforce them. And so that's kind of the ultimate direction we'd

like to go.

Thank you.

Okay. So, yeah, I I think of the options presented, option four probably makes more sense. But I am kinda concerned about the effort that's been required for managing the sixty day period. And, I mean, is it so right now, we have basically unregulated use of county right of ways, and my understanding is, in some cases, state right of ways. Is that correct?

So we have we have few, rules and enforcement actions for our rights of way. The state does have a permitting system in place. It's up to the state to enforce that. So we do have folks placing signs in state right of way that probably shouldn't be if they don't have the proper permits. But they do have a system for regulating that, and it's their program to enforce.

But when it comes to the county rights of way, there really is, you know, we don't have a lot of tools in the toolbox when it comes to enforcing those things. I think your question about the sixty day is is a good one. Again, I think the registration requirement helps us in that regard because we would then know, sort of on the back end when signs a, where signs are going, and b, when their sixty day period expires. That gives us a little heads up on where they are. So we're not in the practice necessarily going out to every authorized area, looking at the back of the signs, trying to see what date they were placed, but we have a little bit of information ahead of time of what signs should be removed by when.

So that gives us a little bit more enforcement capacity. But again, I mean, ultimately, we will be relying on good behavior from folks in the county that are placing temporary signs. Hopefully, people will be removing them at a reasonable time. But, you know, we will have some additional resources at our disposal when it comes time to enforcement once we implement a registry or something similar.

Okay. Well, from when we used to regulate election signs and they were limited to the election season, people would pick them up. So that would happen because otherwise, it's like, it's bad advertising for the person just to leave your signs out and then let them blow around. But it seems like with some of the other signs we've seen put up and I think they started showing up more, I will say, last fall. We started seeing, you know, different businesses advertising near the roundabout, and we got comments about that.

So, obviously, some locations. But I I imagine, though, that if you look at all the locations where we have signs, almost none of them will meet the criteria of being a safe place to be, safe place to park, and they don't impact utilities. There's no wildlife being hidden by the signs. You're basically gonna eliminate every location from what should be really a right away, you know, for signs. Very few of them will be probably yeah.

That's okay to put that there. That's just my thought on that. That's more of the Santa Fe model because, obviously, it's very difficult to determine where these are. And I think and I do know that there are some county utilities in some of the areas that were designated for signs are ready. Now, they're probably not like gas lines, but there are some utilities in those areas. And you noted that we have, people attaching to poles of various kinds now. I drive by at least one every day, you know, on my way home. So we don't enforce that right now. Right? So there are things that we it seems like we're not doing that we could.

So we just not have an interest in enforcing this, or is it, like, not an issue? I've heard some complaints about signs being in some places, like, well, why are they, like, in the park or seemingly in the park? You know, because they're liking the right of way that goes to the park. Another candidate here, you know, Councilor Rigor advocating for businesses with like signs. So I I think this is a very difficult thing to come to a reasonable approach.

And it doesn't make sense to me that we would be investing a lot of code enforcement time in regulating, you know, temporary signs. They're temporary. Most places that you put a sign, especially if you limit the areas to places that are windy, those signs, wireframe signs, will mental fatigue, and those signs will fall over. So they're not gonna last sixty days. So I'm just kinda questioning, you know, if we're gonna let them out for sixty days, and then I don't understand the concept of the, you know, well, there's a shorter duration.

I understand empirically, we see, you know, there's organizations that put out the easels in particular, you know, for different events. And nobody complains about those because, again, they put them up, they take them away, and people like to know that. Imagine some of the people doing yard yard sales probably are looking for some, oh, there's yard sales in this neighborhood. I'm gonna drive around. I think that makes sense. The house for sale doesn't make as much sense anymore, but we do see those also. So what we can't regulate, you know, the signs that make no sense anymore and say you can't put those up. They can put up any sign they like, and we may not like what it says on it. Right? That's true.

We cannot read the sign to determine whether we like the sign in there right away. So I I'm just yeah. So with the the different constraints, I understand there are some areas that made no sense, like down San Oldefonso, you know, by the soccer fields and Fimaville. You know, that made no sense. So we could put it in other areas.

People are using the area around the roundabout, But I don't know that we want We certainly don't want people putting signs in the roundabout. And there's not really a place to park around the roundabout, per se. Especially where people are putting signs. And so I I I I'm just a little bit confused about the with our path forward here. And then I'll see there's a comment about the overpass banners. So are we saying that the overpass banners have to be eight square feet? Or that's going to be regular or there's going be a separate regulation for overpass banners?

Chair Reidy, we currently regulate those in a different way. Overpass signs on the overpass is sort of handled differently at the county than our sort of temporary signage provision. And so we will ensure that any changes we make to the temporary sign code doesn't impact the way that the overpasses are currently used. So we will be sure to accommodate accommodate those and not limit those in the way that, you know, we're talking about for sides placed at the sort of ground plane in the right of way.

Okay. So I I guess I'm confused about the overpass. Is the overpass not in the right of way? Right of way, the way we designate it on our maps. I just was looking at the parcel viewer. There we don't designate the road versus the right of way.

Chair Reidy, that's correct, but we also don't regulate contact. We just have a separate process for that area. So we would have to define that area as having a different set of criteria.

Two overpasses, and then we can have a different duration. That's the place, and we can say it's for whatever number of days. Okay. So, yeah, I guess I'd be just curious to know what the level of effort's gonna be for doing this regulation. Is it gonna be a lot of things with code enforcement is complaint driven, so we're gonna get a complaint about a sign sitting out too long.

And especially with the the the sturdier posts, seems like there should be some utility inspections to verify that they're they're not gonna be puncturing anything that we could be be damaged. Right? So okay. Yeah. I guess I mean so, originally, I guess I was confused about the day thing because you said it's not enforceable, but you're saying we're gonna go back to the registry.

Because that was also one of the things we discussed when we adopted the temporary sign code, whatever, four years ago. Right? That we were going to have, like, a registry of some kind, but we never did that. So now we're saying we're gonna have somebody self register, but and so we're gonna go out and inspect then and say, well, somebody didn't register and then remove the sign. So that's what we're gonna attempt to do. So I guess curious about this because it depends on how many errors we set up, and we really can have somebody go into each of these areas and inspecting the signs.

So, Chair Ruddy, I think you bring up a really good point. And I think as we are sort of contemplating option four and identifying other areas where signs could be allowed or should be allowed at certain times of the year. I think that the points you're making sort of suggests that when it comes to identifying those additional locations, we should probably limit the number of additional locations that would be allowed during those special election seasons. Because I think we don't want to have a situation where we are spreading our enforcement staff too thin. But I think what we can do is, you know, if we get a call about a specific sign, we can certainly follow-up on that call.

But I think what we can also do is just sort of do routine monitoring of of these areas and quickly identify the signs that are, a, out there too long or, b, placed without being properly registered, and remove those signs as we need to. And so I think part of what sort of allows the enforcement of these rules to be manageable is this idea of limiting the areas where they are allowed. And so if we sort of take option four and go from four year round areas to 20 election season areas, then that becomes a really challenging enforcement proposition. But if it's we tack on, you know, two more in Los Alamos and two more in White Rock, then that becomes a more manageable set of of areas that we're that we're administering. So I think what we what we're really looking for is some rules that we can rely on when we are sort of trying to enforce some of the most egregious situations.

Right now, if we were to go out there, that's really hard for staff to, a, confirm, you know, how long has this been out here? It looks pretty weather beaten. It looks this, looks that, but we don't have a sort of the level of confirmation we would need to do sort of an enforcement action on those. And so we're trying to add some of that into the process, as well as, you know, giving us those options we need to enforce, as we see necessary. So as things start to proliferate, we have some some some ability to sort of rein things back in.

And so, you know, I I don't foresee this becoming an issue that's, you know, becoming too burdensome on any particular staff person. You know, I will note that we've been down code enforcement staff since the beginning of the year, and so we've been sort of filling in on that. And that's why we have shifted to a more complaint based approach. But as we sort of staff up that that team, add some more bandwidth capacity to that group, I think the sort of the program that we're contemplating tonight, whether it be option three, option four, what have you, is something that's within our span of control to to regulate more effectively than we currently are.

Miss Warren?

And chair, just wanna point out. I think mister Isaacs had mentioned that adding something to the code to actually tell people if you don't go through you know, if we don't have the sign registered and you haven't don't have this identifying number then telling them what we will do. We will remove it or you know we will dispose of it as trash just so they're on notice that there's a process. Otherwise we don't want to put in ourselves a situation where someone says, hey, I spent a lot of money on that. The county disposed of it, and you owe me. So we have to put people on notice of what the rules are of enforcement, and that would be part of what we would develop once we know the direction. Okay.

And then the the complaint driven process concerns me a little bit because I'm just imagining that people are gonna read the sign to formulate they don't like the sign. So is that So that is that a concern? I mean, so if if So, again, chair, you know, we

would be enforcing the signs based off time, place, and manner. Right? So Right. We're we can't get a complaint that says, hey. This says x y z, and I don't like it. I need you to go remove the sign. That's, not something we would be enforcing. But if somebody said, hey. There's a sign that's looking pretty ragged out there. I think it's been out there for longer than sixty days, and we go out there and there's no registration or it's, you know, been out there for more than sixty days, then that's something that we can enforce. So our enforcement would sort of align with this sort of content neutrality, time, place, and manner type rules that we'd be developing for temporary signs.

Okay. And and I guess without having I guess we've heard about, you know, the businesses like to use some of these signs. Sometimes they but so sometimes, like, near their property and just other way other places around the community. So and we haven't talked to the anybody about you know? Because we could go and look and see which businesses have signs already out, and they may not be compliant if we establish areas. Is that a good chance that they would have to move them from the right of way where they're more visible to some place on the property? That would be the solution for that.

So, you know, I there I I would imagine there's probably some temporary signage in NM DOT right of way right now. There's probably some signage that's in our rights of way that would no longer, sort of be, permissible if we were to move to a system of designated zones. But, again, you know, there is private property just adjacent to our rights of way in in most locations. You know, it may be, you know, members of council have brought up situations where the public property is a good distance from the right of way or from there's a distance between, say, the right of way to their business or something like that. So there there will be some instances where the sort of the rules that we're contemplating might, be challenging for certain businesses to put out signage.

But I think in in a lot of cases, you know, this may mean a difference of moving a feather sign several feet in one direction or the other. But, yeah, I you know, I think it's it's these are good questions and and things we should be thinking through, when developing these codes. I think council member Rieger brought up, you know, just the sort of unanticipated consequences or impacts of some of the things we're contemplating. And so I think we're trying to be as sensitive to that stuff as we can. You know, that's, again, sort of why we're using the process we're using this evening of of really coming to you all for some high level, direction, flagging some potential issues for us to be aware of as we start thinking through what, revised ordinance might look like so that we can really start working through these things.

I really appreciate the feedback on groups in the community that we should be contacting because we wanna make sure that we, to the best of our ability, are creating sort of a program that really works for as many people. The goal of this is not to sort of try to adversely impact as many people as we can in the county, but rather try to create some structure and some enforcement capability. And so we're you know, it's like most things we do in land use. It's it's really about a balancing act. You know, you know, there's trade offs to all of the things we consider when it comes to to rules like these.

But we're really trying to sort of approach this from a position of trying to work with the community and come up with something that works for as many people as possible while also addressing some of the sort of environmental aesthetic and safety concerns that are currently posed by our the practices we have now. And so, again, it's about striking that balance. And so, you know, the feedback we received tonight is is really useful and really helpful in us sort of moving forward and trying to find sort of the right the right way to move this forward.

Okay. Because I know you're trying to address the right away, but I think there was certainly a point of discussion about, like, monument signs for, like, shopping centers. Right? So businesses may not feel like they need to have, you know, like, the the realtor signs, I'll call them that, out if they had better signage for the property. So it is not just you know, so there would be and, certainly, that that is private property in lots of cases.

But having, you know, the better directional signage within shopping centers seems like it's and also just the process, you know, for getting a permanent sign. That was question too. So it seems like I understand the focus for this is on that, but I think, hopefully, we can address other issues as well, and maybe they're in the bigger update. So it's already I mean, fall to me means that you're not gonna have a change this year, basically, right, to temporary signs and right away? I

don't know if I so there's a there's a few things in in your question. I'll try to try to address a couple of them. So one, you know, when it comes to the monument signs, things of that nature, you know, we you know, we're simply talking about temporary signage right now. And so that would fall under our, you know, permanent signage. So, you know, that type of that type of signage, we, you know, deal with in other areas of the code.

You know, council member Rieger brought up, you know, some of the challenges, with getting permanent signs. You know, happy to talk more, you know, individually or or with constituents about that. You know, our signage regulations are no different than what's required by the International Building Code, so we're not putting additional onus on property owners when it comes to permanent signage. We do require, you know, design professional participation in these things simply because of the safety issues. However, the details for permanent signage are pretty standard, whether using channel signage or or, sort of, you know, placard signage, whatever it might be.

Those those mounting details are pretty standard. And so, you know, if members of the community are having a difficult time navigating that part of our code, we're happy to work with them on that. In in my opinion, that's fairly straightforward. It is no different than you might encounter in in any other community, and and professional sign makers and installers deal with those regulations everywhere. As to your last point, and sorry, I've sort of forgotten it. But if you could remind me, happy to address it.

Don't know if I I don't know if at this point, I can remember it. But I would just say I mean, what was this? Oh, the timing. Yeah. The this is not gonna be done in because if you say fall, there's a period of time for the ordinance to become effective.

Thirty days. You know, we're trying to move this forward as quickly as we can. This is sort of not so as you may know, we're also moving forward a packet of revisions to Articles one and five of Chapter 16. Those were going to go to planning and zoning commission next week. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, we had lack of quorum at our last p and z meeting, and so that agenda is getting bumped forward to next week.

And so now our code revisions will be at the May. I believe it's May 27. So we're working on sort of two packages of things together, working closely with the attorney's office on this. You know, I think we will you know, as we start to work through this, really, the sort of the more we learn will sort of dictate our timeline. I feel like we're starting to hear some coal you know, this group sort of coming around to to option four, which is really helpful for us that that gives us some direction as we move forward.

Sort of option three and four are similar in a lot of ways. So either of those really can you know, whichever one ultimately we go with, we still have some good direction in terms of how to start drafting. You know, we'll obviously do some of the outreach work to work with our, you know, you know, interested groups, that are that are currently putting signage in the rights away to make sure we're sort of accommodating their needs to the best of our ability. But, you know, if we were to bring something back to planning commission, you know, early fall back to you guys, you know, in the August, September time frame, it was ultimately adopted, you know, thirty days from there. You know, we're in before the end of the year.

So we could have something on for the end of year. Could we have something in place in time to have sixty days before the November? That, you know, I'm not sure about. Really depends on how the sort of the public engagement and the sort of drafting process goes. We move through sort of, you know, some of these questions that have come up tonight. But we're certainly prioritizing and certainly try to move it forward as quickly as we can. But it's, you know, bundled up with any number of other things that our planning team's working on right now. We also have a comp plan going on, historic master plan going on. So there's, you know, quite a there's a good number of significant work efforts going on with a fairly small team in our planning division, but this is a priority and something we're working.

Okay. I think I've asked enough questions. So we have any public comment here? Please come up.

Hi. I'm Denise Dercic, longtime resident of White Rock and a former county counselor. I raised the issue of additional sign locations back in 2024. I felt at that time that there was a need for some more visible locations for signs. And this was I was thinking in terms of election signs.

But it would apply to all the signs. I had pointed out at that time that the current location for signs on North Mesa I thought was too remote and kind of pointless. And I had suggested possibly a sign somewhere near the golf course, certainly somewhere on Diamond Drive that's more visible. Because the people who live on Barranca Mesa, for example, don't see the signs on North Mesa. It's really only useful for the people who live at the end of the Mesa who actually will see those, or who go to the soccer fields, who will actually see those signs.

So it seemed like not a very effective location for signs. I have noticed the I do agree with the idea to continue designating specific areas for signs and prohibiting them elsewhere in town. I've noticed recently there seem to be signs popping up everywhere. I'm very concerned about the signs that are showing up in the right of ways. I mean the roundabouts, they're a safety hazard.

They should not be in those locations. I agree with the size limitations, the sixty day limitations. Those are already in the current code. So that wouldn't be anything new. Regarding the sixty day limitation, the county actually did issue signed permits back in 2020.

Candidates did have to apply for permits. There were no fees associated with it. But that then did give the county a start date for when the signs were put up on there. So I'm glad to see that counsel is now going to consider updating the sign code. And I'm just hoping that you'll designate more areas and restrict the signs to those areas so that they're not scattered all over the county. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kerr. Anyone else present want to make comment? Okay. Do we have anyone online, Ms. Benson?

Sure, I'll check. If you'd like to make public comment, please raise your hand. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. So this is an action item. So there's a a very kind of general draft motion. The package, is there a counselor interested in making a motion? I'm not sure how much more discussion we need, but we could have a motion on the floor.

We don't need a motion? Is the direction clear enough? I I didn't hear anybody did anybody say they wanted option three? I don't remember that. So maybe the direction's pretty clear with that emotion. Good to go? Okay. Okay. We finished the item. Thank you.

Okay. Now we're on to item 11. 11 a is general counsel business. None. 11 b is appointments. We had one under the consent. 11 c is the board and commission vacancy report, which is attached. And I think it it just doesn't reflect the appointment we made tonight because it was as of May 1. So there's nothing else to say about that. Right? So I think it does show historic preservation has lot of vacancies. Right? So that one's coming next month. I think that's also noted.

Correct, chair.

Okay. So that's the only other thing probably if we don't know because there's quite a few vacancies there. Okay. Now we're on to d, board and commissioner boards. Do we have any councilors headed with court tonight?

Yes, chair. I would like to provide the report for the personnel board. We met on the twenty eighth, and it was interesting that council Haverman asked a question about out of county employees. I don't have it for what I do have is, for the county, miss Bernadette Martinez did actually do a breakdown of the surrounding counties and from which areas people came in order to work at the county. And it's actually, like, 926 people, and she actually broke them out by counties.

I'm sorry, by cities and then the number per city. So the total was at nine twenty six for county employees. The other thing that she brought out was, there's a new deputy HR manager, Tanya Achavaria de Lemos. She started on March 16 on 2026. HR is still recruiting for the senior officer specialist, and they're also preparing for the 27 budget hearings, which we've already heard.

There were two members whose terms will end on the thirty first. She actually put in her report, it was very it was voluminous and very thorough. I'm not going to break out all of it. I just wanted to make sure that we put that into the record that, she brought part of what she brought brought out in her records, I'm sorry, was compensation in HRS, safety and risk management, recruitment, HR training staff development. Actually, the stats on that were pretty impressive.

The benefits that are available, and they've also included a program to get them moving. And the winners of that program were David Levinz, who was a top stepper with a total of four thousand five hundred and fifty four three hundred and twenty steps. And that earned him a day off of a for administrative leave. And then Stephanie Conrad, who was the most improved participant, she had 86.9% improvement rate from start to finish, and she also received a one day administrative leave. Certain other members got participate participation awards.

Service awards included, five years for Sylvia Sayeda, ten years for Victoria Martinez and Tyler Randolph, and then twenty five years for Rebecca Kalavazza. And I think that's it. And I will provide a more formalized report, but I do want that on the record.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Nablen. Do we have any other reports tonight? I

think we already heard about the planning and zoning committee meeting that I attended for councilor Haberman. But one of the other things that occurred at that meeting was or was approved was an extension request for Columbus Capital. And I also attended the Parks and Rec Board meeting on April 9, and one of the things they mentioned at that was the ribbon cuttings that several of us attended today at Pinon Park in 37th Street up here in Los Alamos. If you haven't seen those areas and the improvements that were made, I highly recommend that you go take a look at them. And I think that's it.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Ham, do you have something too?

Yes. I have a lot of different meetings that I attended. I was trying to find more information, but I think it's going to take so long to report all the things that I'll just make it very brief. So with that, on the, April 22, I, chaired the finance subcommittee for the NCRTD. And, basically, all the things that we talked about were they were related to financial reports that were recommended for review by the formal executive board, such as the 2025 audit results.

And I'll just leave it at that. I had the North Central Regional Transit District Board meeting on May 1. And see, I'm trying to think some of the highlights of that were basically, we had a report from the executive director that talked about, their retreat. This was the first retreat that they've done, since we had a new executive director, hired and, it it was a retreat on April 10, and he, identified not only some of the challenges that he's discovered, but some recommendations of how he wanted to move forward. It's very good ideas.

I think he had a lot of support from the board to continue, and so we look forward to seeing more of those action items in more detail in the future. I also attended the North Central New Mexico Economic Development District Board on what day was that? That was the April 23. And the only thing I'd like to mention about that, which I believe is the highlight is that they are basically scaling down to more core activities. They had a lot of programs like housing for aging, you know, like, like, seniors and stuff like that that, those programs are not going to be supported as they were in the past.

They're having some real challenges in actually getting the reimbursements from grants that they were awarded. Basically they have to perform the work in advance and then put in, for reimbursement and then, they're seeing, significant delays in getting that money and that's causing some real problems in how their organization can operate. So, you know, that was one unfortunate piece of news that that, the executive board received. Let's see what else. Also attended a health council.

And on April 22, I just went to the Earth Day Festival, which I commend all the people from the county and and the work they put together to have booths and everything in the municipal building. You know, I thought, you know, there there were a lot of different areas covered and it it was a really good way to interface with the community. So after that I also attended a private event that is going to be incorporated into some of the discussions with the Environmental Sustainability Board regarding plastic recycling and possibly expansion of that program. I think there is some positive reception of that idea with the ESB but that we need to probably tackle that a little bit more before it's something reportable to the council. And I think that's about

it for me.

Okay. Thank you, councilor. Anything else? No. K. I think we're on to the county manager's report. I guess I need to say it's e, county manager's report for March. So we have the in the package. Oh, just some items you wanna highlight on that or any other thing else you want to update council on?

There are a couple items, chair, but I'm going to ask Linda Madison to make an update, and then I will continue with a couple things.

Thank you. Chair, council, I have the, unfortunate opportunity to let you know of some bad news we received. We had previously been given a notice that we were expected to receive an award from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, under their solid waste infrastructure for recycling project. We were set to get a little over $1,000,000 in grant funds for our food composting program. From the time we applied for the grant to present time, some things have changed.

We've been trying to get our permit for the landfill updated through our NMED. We've been working with DOE to try and get a lease amendment to allow us to do the food composting that we wanted. And since those things were not complete, we were very honest with EPA. We walked them through some of our challenges. We walked them through how we felt like we were going to, mitigate those challenges and move forward and could utilize this money and we're ready to get this award.

They felt differently and so we did receive a letter at the April announcing that they will not be giving us those funding. We will participate. They did offer to give us a debrief on their rationale and maybe some opportunities for the future how we can improve in our grant application. And so we will take them up on that matter so that we can possibly get the grants in the future when we have a little bit more of shovel ready project for them.

Okay. Sorry to delegate that to you, Linda, but you had all the information. Okay. So very briefly, highlights. March was a big deal for us was the both the fire department and the police department received their reaccreditations and a lot of hard work, so that was, well deserved.

Polls are open. If you haven't been already, vote early. It's really nice to vote early. And, I think, councilor Neil Clinton, you touched on it, but I do wanna say that at the March, we ended our performance evaluation for employees period, which meant that employees had to be complete with all their mandatory training requirements. And and so, you know, I would just say that, like, our numbers are really good with compliance.

We only had a handful of people that were not compliant. Most of the ones that weren't compliant were retiring, so they didn't feel they need to be compliant for some reason. But there was a handful of people that just made a mistake or had a scheduling or something. But we did not make any exceptions this year and, you know, it doesn't mean that it just means that we're sending the message to all of our employees that we expect compliance with mandatory training and it will affect your performance evaluations. And then I wanted to highlight the two attachments that are in addition to the county manager's report, which is, one of them is a tracking spreadsheet, for retail, and, I'll highlight a couple things on there.

You can zoom in on that to see the details, but it is a breaks big spreadsheet. So if you look at it zoomed out, it's obviously, you can't read it. But what I'll highlight for you there is that we have we just received part two application for the STEAM lab, and we are in the process of, asking questions and getting some additional information that wasn't completed for their part two application for, we're still got a couple of them that we're waiting on. The salon is one of them that we just haven't seen a part two yet even though they had a good idea, and we encourage them to do that. We talked about I think I've mentioned before the cooperative market is a little bit on the holding pattern.

They've gotta resolve some financial status. We are I mentioned, the rock and Janet Lovato. We are moving that forward. We were waiting an appraisal on the property. We received that. It looked good, and so we're gonna move forward with starting to draft high level terms. It is a loan, a Lida loan. It, we actually moved it off this page to the second attachment, which is regular Lida because it's a larger amount than than retail LEDA program specified. And let's see. Non Bay drugs, we are just awaiting some clarification.

They did submit a phase two. Their application looks good, but they were, wanting to potentially ask have some additional ask. So we encourage them to instead of having a separate application, put all of their ask in one so we can process them at once. And then for Fiore and Saleh, they're also a little in the pending with co op. They've got to address some financial situations they've gotta work through before we can move that forward.

We also received, an application for weed. And, again, they didn't qualify for retail, but they did submit a very detailed application and complete application. And we just received that just over a week ago. And then, we also just received a part two sorry. Not a part two.

We just received an initial inquiry for the American Legion, so we are just starting that process. So those are highlights of changes since last time you've seen it. I do wanna talk a little bit about the details of the bit of these, I guess, attachment c. So Ubiquiti was awarded, and they are scheduled to close on their property, Monday right now. So everything's moving forward there. I mentioned Janet Lovato. She's

right now, we're trying to work through

the details of the high level terms. Now we have an appraisal on the property that did come in adequate for the ask. We are also processing and received, an agreement on the guest house in the amount of $3,000,000, and that's for the old, hilltop house property. And then, I mentioned the weed, application for a $100,000, so we're looking at that as well. So those are the updates.

We did receive a separate MRA application for the Meramec, and, we are meeting with them, tomorrow. So, my point is is there's a lot of momentum, and we are really working each just a friendly reminder that each individual application for lead to MRA, it's not an entitlement program. They have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. They have to be individual ordinances, introduction and ordinance. And we have to have those draft participation agreements to include with the ordinance.

So that's what the work that we're working to get to that point. And it has to be agreed upon by both the county and by the applicant. So there has to be agreement on terms. And so that we're in the back and forth stages on a couple of them. We're hopeful to have some a couple more in front of council as soon as possible. And we're I I'm very excited to be able to commit some of those dollars that we have in our academic development fund to some of these initiatives we've been talking about and some of these vacant parcels that we hear the community would like to see break ground someday. Thank you. I'll stand for any questions.

Okay. Do we have any questions? Thanks for the reports. I guess there there could be kinda, like, metrics developed, but there isn't a huge number of but there's, like, application dates and turnaround times and right? So

We're just tracking the dates at this time and making sure, especially from the lead of retail, that they're not sitting in our hands longer than possible than necessary. There it is a back and forth, though, so it's not always the time clocking on

the county side. I understand.

But, yeah, but it's it does lend itself looking like it's a time clock. So just so just how it looks. Okay. Any nothing else there? Okay. I think we're on to the council chair report. Just gonna be pretty brief. We've already heard about some of these things. So and week before budget hearings, we had the new nuclear forum in Augusta, Georgia. Next year, it's gonna be in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

And then hopefully in 2028, it's gonna come to New Mexico. So I think that's a really good opportunity for the state to try to have some nuclear development. We already have some developers here in the state, so I think that'd be a good opportunity. Then there was May 1, I attended the Mexico County's Board. The the site that had been picked for next year for the annual conference dropped out.

Luna County dropped out. So there were two counties that submitted packages. We wound up picking Eddy County for 2027, and then Lincoln County was requested to apply for 2029, and they agreed to they would do that. So the next three meetings after this year will all be in that part of the state, Eddy County, Lee County, and Lincoln County. Then yesterday, we have been contacted by a KRQA, KRQE, to see if we could interview us about community's reactions to what we just heard about tonight, which was the basically, the buildup, you know, the SWISE being, you know, the expanded operations and, you know, the work that's going on at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

So I did that yesterday, and I used the resolution that we all voted to support, I think, in February. It's kind of the basis for the comments I I gave the reporter, and we'll see if that actually we don't know if that's gonna actually gonna be aired and if they would use anything I said in it or not. Then the Park Ribbon the Ribbon Gardens are really good today. Pinyong Park, not more than a stone's throw away, but there were probably 50 children there, I think. We're very eager to get into the they were a lot more lively than people are right now in this room.

I can tell you that. Just the difference in the energy. Okay. Okay. So and then also, I think the adaptive play equipment, there's a version of that for the swing at 37th Street. So if you're interested in seeing that, you can go and check it out there. And there's gonna be one ordered for Pinyon Rocket Park. So k. I'm not seeing any questions coming. Okay.

So so we just had a really good and robust discussion about counselor expenses at the budget hearings. There are some expenses I think that we do need to approve. So one of them is the intergovernmental meeting, and I think what we've agreed to do is is just to send one counselor there. That's gonna be an ECA board meeting in Arlington, Virginia. The dates are June.

So ECA will reimburse those expenses, but we we just have to approve approve it if it's being reimbursed. And then the other thing that's gonna be coming up a bit later that we might have to we won't wanna think about getting it. And we can we can not do the second one if we wanna wait. But because I think with arranging for flights as a cleanup workshop, I think we had talked about doing that one too. So so that's gonna be also a board meeting for UCA.

And I think what we had heard during the budget hearings was that I'm not sure if we're gonna have so we'll probably try to have one staff member paid for and one counselor. So there would be additional counselor expenses, of course, next fiscal year. But I I think that the expenses so there there could be, depending on the timing of the tickets, we might have expenses that actually are for this year. Is that correct?

Sure. It's it's possible if we do the registration.

Okay. So, anyway, so I just wanna so the intergovernment meeting, I think, is pretty straightforward because we're gonna really not have expenses for that. One counselor's I'll I'll go to that one. And then for the cleanup workshop, we will probably want to send a second counselor. So two counselors, I'm not sure about and then the staff budget isn't our budget, but we just have to decide whether or not to approve expenses for a cleanup workshop.

Any thoughts about that tonight or wait?

The workshop or the

The cleanup workshop is the one. The National Cleaning Workup is actually an ECA managed workshop. And that one the dates of that are September in Crystal City, Virginia.

Is it on? I

believe it is. September. Yeah. So there'll be an ECA board meeting, and I think they'll we'll be electing probably one position, my position, since I won't be available after the end of the year.

Chair, if if you're going into mid September for some approvals, I just wanted to mention that I'm still assigned to the NMML, and they have an annual conference on September in Las Cruces. So I don't know if we want to approve that at this at this time or if we wait.

Okay. I don't know if that one will be just hotel, right, some of airfare. That's the reason why the cleanup workshop.

Airfare for Las Cruces? Yeah.

You're driving.

It seems like you can just drive.

Yeah. You're just driving in this. So you can you can reserve the hotel. That's the registration if you have to pay that. I'm not sure. Probably. If I'm not sure when they open registration. So if we have to pay for that this fiscal year, we might as well look at approving it now, or that's up to council decide if we what we wanna do. But

I just know that we have that actually on our list, and and, you know, I'm assigned to that to be the interface for that. So

trying to remember what you said.

So the list is intergovernmental meeting. I think for the motion for the clerk, do we have to have the dates? Because I can restate the dates. You have all of them? Okay. And you have the third one for the municipal league. It's in September. So I think the motion could just be the the names, intergovernmental meeting, cleanup workshop and municipal league. Is that correct?

I'm sorry.