County Council - Session - Regular Meeting

Okay. Thank you. So I want to welcome everyone to the 03/03/2026 County Council regular session. So tonight's meeting will be in hybrid format. Meaning we'll have council presenters and public participation either in person or remotely on Zoom.

You can participate remotely using computers or other devices. And we also have phone lines available. So we're going to have public comment accepted at the beginning of the meeting on items that are not on the agenda tonight. Please ask people that will have Ms. Masman look for attendees that are virtually on Zoom that want to speak, raise their hand.

And also please make sure that you include your full name so you can be properly addressed. I'd like to request people keep their comments to three minutes or otherwise directed during the meeting and to state your name when making comments. Comments should be addressed to the chair and focused on the topic being considered. And lastly, goal is to complete the meeting no later than 10PM. And we'll check our progress from now 9PM if we're still meeting at that point. So on to next item one. So we have one counselor on Zoom. So, maybe we should have a roll call.

Here. Councilor Riegore?

Here.

Councilor Hand? Here. Councilor Heavenman? Here. Councilor Herrmann? Here. Councilor Neil Clinton? Here. And Councilor Reidy?

Here. Okay. Let the record show we have all counselors are attending. One is attending remotely. So item number two is Pledge of Allegiance. If you're willing and able, please join us in the pledge. Okay. So now we're on to item number three, which is a statement regarding the closed session. Is there a counselor, counselor Han?

Thank you, chair. The matters discussed in closed sessions of County Council held on 03/03/2026 that began at 04:30PM was limited only to the topic specified in the notice of the closed session and no action was taken on any matter in the closed session. We request that this statement be included in the meeting minutes.

Okay thank you Chancellor Hand. So now we're on to item number four which is public comments. As I mentioned just a moment ago this is for public comment on items that are not on the agenda tonight. So is there anyone looks like there's somebody wanting to make a public comment tonight. So please come up and just state your name, and we'll get the timer ready for you.

Hi. My name's Sam Gardner. I'm at 191 Dome Road in the Jemez. And I was born and raised here in Los Alamos. Good evening, council councilor Ruddy. Thanks for having me. I'd like to speak again about the the nuclear deterrence summit and and some of the conclusions that were made available to us kind of about the new mission. And, mister Weichen, I'm glad you're here to answer some questions. So let me just go over a few of these. And I went over some of these last time.

Let's see. Brandon Williams said that Cuban Missile Crisis, the geopolitical climate as the most dangerous since the Cuban Missile Crisis, urging an American first shift, the NNSA is no longer defined solely as a scientific stewardship organization. We are focused on weapons production, delivering real capacities, capabilities, and innovations at speed to meet today's threats. At the end of the meeting, to kind of wrap things up from what I understand, Richard Coral, commander of the US Strategic Command, said, we will continue to deter and manage escalation by providing all credible options, which I assume are nuclear weapons, to the president, which I assume is Donald Trump right now in subsequent presidents, that caused any potential adversary to say not today. So I I wanna point out that, the president that is referenced here, If we turn on CNN, Fox News, or just open your phone and listen to the news, we're in the middle of a a a conflict, a major conflict.

And without NATO's involvement, without our allies involvement. And at this point, I'd like to bring up and Mr. Weike, you can tell me if this is true.

Mr. Garner, please address the chair

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry. Council. Yeah. Sure. So yeah.

Sure. So I I think their new branding statement is peace through atomic strength. And Donald Trump already has the most lethal nuclear weapons arsenal at his disposal right now, and we're not seeing any peace out there. So to bring to push science aside that might save humanity and move into nuclear weapons production, it makes absolutely no sense to me. And I'm not sure why it makes sense to the council.

It or am I getting gonged? So I'll wrap up. Mr. Wyka, with all due respect, I don't think anyone in Northern New Mexico is buying into what you're going to tell us. I think that we are about science here I'll address you, sorry and not about nuclear weapons. I think nuclear weapons is our dark past, and we want to move on from that. So thank you. Thanks for having me again.

Thank you, Mr. Carter. Yep. Do we have anyone else in chambers who wants to make public comment? So Ms. Madison, can you look online to see if there's any commenters?

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

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

move that we approve the agenda as presented.

Okay. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. So we have a motion by Councilor Cole, second by Councilor Haberman. Any discussion? Not seeing any can you please call the roll?

Councillor Herman? Yes. Councillor Haberman?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Cole? Yes. Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

And Councilor Han? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to item six, which is presentations, proclamations, or recognitions. 6A is twenty one thousand three hundred twenty six-twenty six, proclamation recognizing the 200 birthday of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and we clung a series of activities hosted by Los Alamos Community Wins. And Counselor Haberman has the proclamation to read.

Thank you, Chair. Whereas music is a vital and unifying element of community life, enriching cultural understanding, fostering creativity, and enhancing the quality of life for residents of Los Alamos County, And whereas Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's music continues to inspire musicians and audiences of all ages through its artistic excellence and enduring influence on classical music 270 since his birth. And whereas the month of March has been designated as Music in Our Schools Month by the National Association for Music Education, recognizing the essential role that music plays music education plays in the academic, social, and emotional development of students. And whereas Mozart Week in Los Alamos County aligns with the goals of Music in Our Schools Month by promoting music learning, supporting educators and students, and reinforcing the value of music as a fundamental part of a well rounded education. And whereas the Los Alamos Community Wins brings together musicians of diverse backgrounds, strengthening community connections and serving as a cornerstone of local artistic expression and encourages the community to celebrate the legacy of Mozart and recognize the importance of music in our shared civic life at their Spring Gala concert on March 14 at 7PM at Crossroads Bible Church.

And whereas other community organizations will join in celebration of Mozart's 200 birthday with themed programming, including a clarinet recital and lecture by Doctor. Marie Ross, the Mozart themed movie Amadeus at Sale Event Center, noon performances by local ensembles and more. Now, therefore, on behalf of the Council of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, I do hereby proclaim March 2026 as Mozart Week in Los Alamos. And furthermore, do hereby designate the month of March 2026 as music in our schools month in Los Alamos. Dated this March and signed by our chair, Randall Reidy.

Thank you, Councilor Haberman. Mister Beas, did you want to make a few remarks?

Yes. Thank you, members of the County Council. We're very honored to be able to do this for the community. This is a project that we've been working on for most of the end of last year and all of this year. And we're very grateful for you to make this proclamation because we feel very strongly, of course, that music is important in our personal and our public lives. And just, again, thank you very much for doing this.

Okay. Thank you. So let me get a photograph. Okay thank you let's see now we're on to item six b which is two one two five six dash two six presentation from Ted Wyka and NSA field office manager

Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the County Council, good evening to all. My name is Ted Wyka. I'm the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration federal manager for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Thank you for the invitation to be here this evening and to address the council.

Maintaining a positive relationship with the county is very important to us. I thank you for the opportunity to provide these important updates about items of interest to you and our local residents regarding the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Now these reports are important for me to hear your feedback in identifying areas of mutual interest. Some updates this evening is we want to update you on several items, including the mission and updates and impacts, Rendeha Canyon land transfer, the electrical power capacity upgrade project, and our successfully completed depressurization and off-site removal of four flanged tritium waste containers. Now following my update, Stephanie Stringer, our Deputy Field Office Manager for Mission, Security, and Landlord Stewardship, will present Llano's site wide environmental impact statement.

First budget and mission, LANO is currently operating under full budget authority after their annual appropriations bill was passed by Congress earlier. I expect Land O to receive roughly $5,300,000,000 in federal appropriations with a significant portion going to support our expanding nuclear weapons activities. There will be increased construction activity as NNSA continues to work to modernize the infrastructure around the site. I also expect the lab will do well in maintaining their research and development capabilities as they focus on such issues as artificial intelligence, small modular reactors, the nuclear fuel cycle, and geothermal power generation. Overall, I expect Lando's budget to be solid and stable.

Hiring because of Lando's continued responsibility in the nuclear weapons arena, I expect them to hire somewhere between 2,400 new employees this year. Now let me be very deliberate in what those numbers mean. Lando typically attrits roughly about 900 staff a year. So the numbers I just mentioned would include replacing that attrition and adding an additional 100 to 500 new staff on top of the 900. The message on hiring is that it will continue, and there is no planned hiring freeze.

Operational safety. Landlord continues to exert significant effort into their safety and compliance activities. They recently passed their annual NME D RCRA inspection with no violations, which is pretty incredible for an operation of their size. In addition, the success that they have had reestablishing pit production could not have been achieved without steadily improving operational safety. My office recognizes that continuous safety improvement is the goal across the site, and my staff is working hard to ensure that laboratory does not lose focus on that goal.

Vendee Canyon land transfer. The NNSA Los Alamos field office is finalizing a contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers to conduct two important studies in Vendee Canyon. The first is a housing feasibility study that will focus on the feasibility of housing in Rendeja Canyon. The second is a more comprehensive unexploded ordinate scan. This study arises from earlier negotiations between NNSA and Los Alamos County.

It will develop a cost estimate and recommendation to scan for unexploded ordinance to a depth of greater than four feet. An initial study scan for has been done for three inches. TRIAD is finalizing the paperwork to allocate about $500,000 for both studies. Performance period expected to begin this month and go through the end of this year. The project experienced a significant delay due to the deferred resignation program in which more than 300,000 to 317,000 federal employees resigned or retired.

Consequently, the Southwest Division of the US Corps of Engineers was unable to support the work. And it was reassigned to the Corps Omaha division. Division. EPCU, the electrical power capacity upgrade project mobilized construction in October 2025, starting with underground utility work that began impacting West Hamas traffic on-site in February. The new transmission line and internal system upgrades will ensure that the lab can continue to operate and retain vital missions.

The project will begin upgrades to on-site substations as early as May and will continue substantial electrical utility work across the site through 2028. NNSA and lab staff are actively negotiating and finalizing permits with the Bureau of Land Management as well as Santa Fe National Forest Service are expecting work to commence on the Calderia Plateau this fall. Flange trading waste containers. We recently posted volume two of the final report detailing downwind air and soil sampling measurements conducted to support the flange trading waste container depressurization operation last fall. This volume summarizes downwind environmental sampling results and explores different plume modeling scenarios that were performed after the flange treating waste container operations concluded.

Volume one of the report discusses in detail the execution of the flanged tritium waste container pressure mitigation project. Both volumes and day by day rundowns of the flanged tritium waste container operations are available on the lab's flange straight and waste container web page. I really do want to recognize the outstanding performance of the more than 100 employees from the various organization who worked very deliberately on this project over the last several years. Depressurization of the four containers began September. And the final container was shipped off-site to WCS in Texas on November 14.

There were no operational safety issues. Team did a great job, very deliberate in their operations. And all the emissions were well below the EPA radioactive air emission standards. Let's see. At this point, I'd like to turn it back over to Stephanie. Again, the deputy field office manager for mission security and landlord stewardship to talk about this twice, and then we can maybe answer some questions afterwards.

Thank you. Good evening, mister chair, members of the council. Like Ted said, I am here to brief you all on the Llano site wide environmental impact statement. So I have a fair number of slides, many of which are just more for reference, so I'll go through those, but I won't be giving every detail on them. So our purpose of this briefing on slide number two is to provide you all an overview of what the Llano Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement is.

I'll refer to that as the SWISS moving forward. The timeline of activities associated with it. The layout and the content so that you can navigate and locate any information you may want to in the document. Some information on the campus master plan that feeds into the planning of the Lantel SWISS. I'll go over the alternatives evaluated and the environmental resource areas that were evaluated, and then key changes that occurred from when the draft was issued to the final document.

Next slide, please. So as a quick overview, the Los Alamos Field Office worked with our partners at Environmental Management, EMLA, to prepare the new SWISE, which evaluates operations for the next fifteen years through 2038. The last SWISS was published in 2008 and there were subsequent supplement analysis to that. This SWISS analyzed the future planned operations at Llano and developed impacts to the local environment focusing on three different alternatives: the no action alternative, a modernized operations alternative, and the expanded operations alternative. And I'll go into details of each of those shortly.

So we began this process back in August 2022. We issued a notice of intent to do the lanolin SWISE. We entered the scoping process, which occurred from August through October of that year, where we solicited input on the scope that would be included in the document. We spent the next couple of years actually developing the draft SWISE. We published that in January 2025.

We held a comment period and conducted public meetings during that time frame. And then based on requests that we received, we did extend public comment period through 04/10/2025. We took all of those comments that we received, processed them, and modified the document accordingly and plan to issue the final SWIS really any day now. It's actually been finalized. We've completed our consultation, and we are awaiting final decision.

Next slide. So this one just covers the layout and the content, so it tells you how it's organized. You can read this yourself, but if you wanted to dig deeper in the document, I just wanted to give you a high level overview of how it was organized to help guide you through it. The next slide does that as well, so I'm not gonna go into those details, but I thought it might be worthwhile for you to just have information on how it's organized. It's a really massive document when you look at all of the appendices and associated documents.

Okay, next slide, campus master plan. So the SWISS evaluates projects that are proposed in the campus master plan and other documents, And again, it covers a period of up to fifteen years. It's know, Lennell is a big place and covers many areas. And so this is just really eases our organization. We divide it into planning areas.

They're kind of color coded on the map. But this is how we think about what needs to be done at Llano and how we organize all of the different projects to feed into our analysis in this ways. Next slide, please. So this is just a depiction of how many projects are in any given alternative. So this is a map of the no action projects in the Pau Rito Corridor, and I'll explain what the no action alternative is here shortly.

Okay. Now, slide five. So this is just a graphical representation of how the different alternatives build on each other. So the ongoing operations are kind of in the gray area, and those are currently ongoing. They're happening now.

And then the green area above that are the approved projects that already have NEPA coverage and they're approved. And so all of that encompasses the no action alternative. So those basically those have NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, coverage, and that's alternative the where we do nothing. The next alternative above that is the modernized operations alternative. So that's the blue triangle, and then we have the expanded operation.

So they're just really building on each other, and now I'll go into detail of what they include. Okay. So the no action alternative, like I said, it already has NEPA coverage or, alternatively, a project takes a different course of action, a different NEPA pathway. So an example of that would be the, environmental sorry, the electrical power capacity upgrade project, which took its own NEPA process, and we separated that out. So it's included under the no action alternative because it has a different course.

So under this, the projects that are already approved include new facility construction. These projects total about 34 acres. Examples of this include warehouses, offices, fire stations, and cafeterias. So those are already planned and will be constructed in the future. It also includes infrastructure upgrades.

So these are upgrades to existing facilities and infrastructure or utilities. So again, that includes the EPCU project, which underwent its own NEPA review, but it also includes roads and parking areas and construction lay down areas. Operational changes as part of the no action alternative include implementing the pit production mission. So currently that is 30 pits per year with a surge capacity of up to 80 per year. So that is the record what's on the record and coverage for.

It also includes decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition activities for approximately 186 excess facilities, and it includes the continued remediation of the continued remediation in compliance with the 2016 compliance order on consent, and so that encompasses all of the legacy contamination cleanup that EM does. Next, we'll go into the modernized operations alternative. So this includes all of the no action alternative projects as well as new facilities. Again, kind of more warehouses, offices, cafeterias, those types of facilities. It will also include replacing facilities that are approaching their end of life, upgrading existing facilities to extend their lifetime, and improve work environments to enable the NNSA to meet operational requirements.

So in addition to the warehouses, we'll also include security facilities, explosives and laser facility, visitor and conference center, a consolidated waste facility, and a radiography assembly complex. All of those are part of the modernized operations alternative. Additional infrastructure upgrades include facility upgrades and infrastructure or utilities. So these include solar arrays, the Lance Accelerator Modernization Project, improvements to the sanitary wastewater system, the canyon bridge replacement, and roads, parking, and institutional lay down areas, among a couple others that I didn't mention, but you can read through the list yourself. And then on top of the infrastructure upgrades and the new facilities, it will include decontamination, decommissioning and demolition of 156 additional excess facilities that equate to 1,200,000 additional square feet and 2.75 acres.

So this modernized operations is really important. So the next slide just depicts how old a lot of our infrastructure really is and the need for this modernized operations alternative. So most of our facilities are, you know, over 50 years old, and they're really rated in

as you

can see by the graph, a lot of them are in the fair and poor categories. So these these upgrades are really needed. This is an old facility, and we want to modernize it under this alternative. Next slide, please. So next I'll go into the expanded operations alternative. Again, this builds on the others. It includes the no action and the modernized alternatives. It includes new facility construction. The list is here of what that includes. We've got the new x-ray free electron laser facility near Lance, a micro reactor, true waste staging, etcetera.

I'll let you read the list. Utilities and infrastructure improvements, those include more roads, more parking, pumped hydropower, and a cooling tower for Lance. And then it also speaks to operational changes. So this would include the feral cattle management that is a big concern in this area, and additional wildland fire risk reduction treatments that aren't included in the other alternatives. No additional D and D is included under this expanded operations alternative.

And so that essentially summarizes the different alternatives. Not all of these projects are approved nor will they all be implemented, but we did want to ensure that we did the analysis to be comprehensive for all of the planning so projects that we did want to move forward on. A lot of it depends on getting funding for them and just evaluating the need as we go. So those are the alternatives. Our preferred alternative is the expanded operations alternative.

And so, that's the one we recommended for approval. The environmental resource areas that were analyzed as part of the SWISS are very comprehensive. They include land resources, cultural and paleontological resources. I knew I was gonna mess that one up. Socioeconomics, geology and soils, water resources, air quality and noise, ecological resources, human health and safety, infrastructure, waste management, transportation, and accidents and intentional destructive acts.

So for each of these resource areas, the SWISS presents the potential impacts for each of the alternative and identifies best management practices and any mitigation measures required to eliminate or limit those potential impacts. So we want to understand what those impacts are, and we want to do everything possible to or avoid any of those potential impacts as part of this process. So a good example of that is cultural resources. The SWISS indicates that up to, I think it's 15 or 16 cultural resources could be impacted from these activities. However, our goal is always zero impact, and we have a very robust program that really avoids any impacts.

If we identify a cultural resource that is being impacted, we stop work, and we do everything we can to avoid or mitigate that. Okay. So my I think this is my last slide talks about the changes from the draft to the final. So like I said, we had a comment period where we received input from the public. We had tribal consultations where we received input from the tribal communities.

And so we took all of those comments, in order to finalize draft. So the notable changes And that I wanted to mention were there was a few changes that occurred during our process. So there was a recession of executive orders relating to environmental justice and climate change impacts from greenhouse gases. And there was a rescission of the Council on Environmental Quality, NEPA regulations. Then so while those executive orders were implemented, a lot of the concepts were covered in related areas.

For example, environmental justice, a lot of that went into the socioeconomic analysis section, and a lot of the climate change impacts went into different environmental sections of the document. There were new NEPA implementing procedures that came out in June 2025. That does somewhat streamline the process. However, we had already begun before those, procedures came out, so it was pretty minimally impacting our process. However, there were, page limits that we had to meet, in order to align with the applicable requirements.

And so we did have to reduce it. You know, we tried to make the document as readable as possible. It's a very complex subject. All of the planning that goes into Llano and the environmental analysis. And so there are very lengthy appendices that provide the context and the supporting information to that shortened document.

Let's see. So the 2023 Lantel SWISE yearbook, that was posted in early twenty twenty five and incorporated as part of the baseline for the SWISE. So we wanted the final version to be as up to date as possible. You've got to have a cutoff in order to finalize a document. And so that is essentially our cutoff with the publication of that SWISS yearbook.

Other changes included updates to analytical parameters for total workforce, the estimated worker dose in p f four, and the projected waste generation during p f four refurbishment and pit production. I would say that's one of the areas that we got a significant number of comments, and Ted pulled together a working group to ensure we had the most accurate data feeding into that final document. And so I feel that was a good improvement, and sort of response to the comments that were received through the process. And lastly, this is just a mission change, the removal of surplus plutonium disposition program from EXP and replaced with limited enhancement of ARIES. Those are just mission changes that we had to incorporate into the document to reflect and align with our leadership.

So that concludes my presentation.

Doctor. Thank you, Stephanie. And just to emphasize one thing that Stephanie mentioned, again, this site wide environmental impact statement is looking at everything that could possibly happen within the next fifteen years, analyzes all the resource impacts that you saw listed there. Again, like Stephanie said, that doesn't mean we are going to do everything. We have to issue record of decisions on things that we're actually going to do from this impact statement. As well as if our mission should change, there's other vehicles that we would use to continue the analysis, like if our PIP production numbers increased, we would do supplements and other analysis to support those. But with that let me turn it over for questions.

Okay great. Thank you Mr. Weich and Mr. Stringer. So we're not going to have any actions so we'll just have any questions or comments that counselors have? Stokes, Counselor Hin, would you like to start?

Thank you chair. Thank you for the presentation. It's always nice to get an update of what's going on across the bridge. And there are a lot of things going on over there that is interesting to to hear about. Regarding the SWISE, I was just wondering, so you had recommended the expanded operations alternative and, you know, you had just mentioned that, there would be a record of decision for anything that moves forward.

I was just wondering what exactly are the next steps? On your last slide you said something about the final draft will incorporate some of the things from the draft or or or the draft some something about it will happen. You know, the updates will happen. So I wasn't sure sure if you're actually updating now or if it's completely updated and it's final and what happens.

Doctor. Good question. In the document, at least the analysis of site wide environmental impact statement is a final document. As Stephanie mentioned, it's in for signature. I expect it to get signed, if not this week, next week.

And then from that, then we'll issue record of decisions on things that we intend to implement near term. And as we based on appropriations and funding, then we'll continue issuing record of decisions on things that we'll implement. So again, this is analysis. It's based on what our defined PIP production requirements are. If those change, then, you know, we'll use a supplement and other analysis to, you know, look at the impact on resources for any expanded versions.

So this defines, everything within our scope that we know of and everything that we're going to be doing over the fifteen years. And we looked at the expanded option as our recommendation, as a recommended option. And then we'll issue Recorded Decisions shortly after the issuance of the final SWISE on things that we intend to implement.

So can you tell me who is signing it and who is monitoring progress against the SWISE?

This will be signed by the NNSA administrator, Brandon Williams. It's on his desk now. And that's my job. I'm responsible for implementing the site wide environmental impact statement and the record of decisions based on budgets and other defined parameters and work.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Houghman.

Thank you, Chair Reidy. Also, thank you for being here and giving us an update. It's really helpful. And if you said this, and I missed it, my apologies. But if the expanded option is approved, then really all the bullet items from the kind of as is or no action and then the modernization and then expanded are then all part of your menu of things to implement in the next fifteen years or so.

You had wildfire mitigation on the expanded list. Could one interpret that to mean that it's a lower priority or it won't happen for way down the road because all the things on the no action list have to happen first and the modernization list second? Because that concerned me that wildfire mitigation appears to be kind of a lower priority.

No, no. Good question. Let me sort of answer that. Because you're right, fire mitigation is probably one of the more important things we do up here, especially with the history of our wildland fires. So it sort of builds on each other. The expanded operation includes everything from the no action to the other alternatives. It sort of includes everything. And the fire mitigation is not new and that's high priority. We do that all the time. We've been doing that for the last year with ground cover, ground clearing and moving trees and or interactions and drills that we do with the community, with the other federal agencies and stuff.

So fire mitigation is something that we've done, we're going to continue to do, we do that every year. In fact, as I've mentioned in previous council meetings, that was one of the things that helped with rear ground of fire, was the fact that a lot of it was already cleared. So that's important. It's important for the lab. It's important for the community. So we take that very seriously. We do that every day. We have people that that is all they look at. We have a Type I commander on the staff, which there is only a handful of those in the country to look at what we need to do to minimize the impacts of any fires, which we're going to get them, especially with the dry season that we're having now. So that's something that we do on a regular basis.

So if I could follow-up. So if we don't get the whole kitchen sink or we, I shouldn't say we, if NNSA and the laboratory don't and triad then what and you don't get the expanded option or down the road, there's not budget to support that, etcetera, then what do we miss out on as a region in the fire mitigation category? Because it it appears like there's something incremental in that third option that's, like, better, brighter, shinier for fire mitigation.

Specific treatments.

Okay. Go ahead, Stretch. Specific treatments.

Thank you, Councillor Haven. Yes. The expanded alternative, like Ted said, we already have coverage for a lot of the wildfire mitigation activities, and this one speaks to different techniques that are implemented above and beyond what we're already doing. So, you know, that's something that's we want to protect the assets at Llano, and so it's one of the highest priorities like Ted said. So if we were to not get the expanded operation, we would have to work within the NEPA coverage that we have.

It's not to say we couldn't parse something out and do a separate evaluation. This is just a site wide environmental impact statement, so it covers everything that's planned for the next fifteen years. But if there's an individual project need that doesn't have the NEPA coverage, then we can there's a process that affords us the opportunity to do that. Hopefully that answers your question.

Unfortunately I could only talk future tense right now by probably a couple of days. Probably in a few days I could talk past tense. So I expect that to be approved.

Okay. That's good too. But then it doesn't mean that it's these extra things that could be done, as you said in the stringer, that doesn't just because it was on that third bucket doesn't mean it's suddenly if it's approved in a few days, that it's lower priority or farther down on the timeline. You could do that whatever these great new things you could do, we could do that sooner.

Correct. It would be based on funding, priorities, needs, those types. This just gives us the environmental analysis that

we Yeah, this is not really a funding or budget document. Right.

And this is something that's already funded. Yeah. You know, our fire mitigation program.

Okay. All right. That's helpful. Thank you. I guess the next is just a comment. I'm really disappointed about the rescission, of the executive orders regarding environmental justice and climate change and Lantel caring about the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. So that just just find that disappointing. And maybe

don't know.

Let me help address that

a little Yes, please. That would be great because it just frustrates

environmental justice. It's in the appendices of the analysis. So we look at a lot of the same stuff that we looked at before. And plus we go above and beyond like in doing government to government consultations with all the prebels. I'm continuously communicating with all 23 Pueblo's in New Mexico and that we're open to any meetings. And we had many meetings on this with government to government consultations. And so we include all those impacts, environmental justice impacts and cultural impacts. It's just in appendices and covered under different titles.

Yeah, I get it. Thank you.

K. Thank you, councilor Hammond. Councilor Neil Neil Cohen.

Thank you, chair. I I only have one question. Regarding what are the what are the key operational impacts identified? Can you and and and that also includes any risks or the constraints. Can you speak to those?

Operational

impacts, I guess, would be on our mission space, those affecting the community in terms of traffic, in terms of just the workforce up here. And we've sort of analyzed for that as well. Sort of like I mentioned in my part of testimony, our workforce isn't going to increase all that much. We're mainly making up for attrition. The work skill mixes may change as we get into operations from construction and D and D to workforce to crafts, trades, subject matter experts, and stuff like that.

So in terms of the operations, I don't think there's going to be a significant impact to the Los Alamos County, the community, except the traffic is probably where we're at right now, where we have a lot of programs in place to try to reduce that, use and remote working where we can. We have facilities in Santa Fe that we can house people in, as well as busing and doing all we can to reduce the folks that actually need to be up here, do a mission type work. And so we're trying to reduce the mission impacts with our traffic impacts, which probably is the biggest thing in terms of our mission increase that you may see directly within the community.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Neelyuk. Councillor Reiger?

Thank you, Chair. So there was a micro reactor listed on your, second second part of the presentation. And is that for power or research? Or what is it for? Is it a real plan?

Councilor Rigaud, yes. It would be for power generation. Again, you know, this we have NEPA coverage for it, but it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to build a microreactor immediately. There are a lot of hoops that need to be, gone through. So it's just, you know, sort of saving the space, so to speak, for that opportunity. If it arises and if it makes sense for our mission needs, we've got the NEPA coverage for that.

And that was a big discussion with bringing up the EPCU, which is electrical power capacity unit. The third transmission line was other alternatives, other power supplies, micro reactors fall into that category. We do analyze it just in case in the next fifteen years we have to look at additional power supplies. But, you know, this is what I don't anticipate doing.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Was on the third list or something? Possible would you call the alternative. Third Yeah. Expanded alternatives.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, councilor Reagor. Councilor Cole?

So

I since this was brought up in the earlier public comment, I noticed on each of the slides it says piece through atomic strength. Is that an NNSA logo? Is that Lanyl's new logo? Where does that come from?

I don't do logos. So it's I don't think it's an NNSA logo and it's, you know, it's you know, I think it was referred to, from the last speaker at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit. You know, our job here is to implement national security, policies. You know, we don't develop the policies, we implement them. And we do it in the most safe, secure and environmentally compliant manner. So I'm not very sure where that came.

I was curious on it. I hadn't heard it before. Actually, and before the public commenter brought it

up

earlier. So I'm assuming the lab is still doing some basic science in addition to doing being funded by NNSA to do pits and other things similar to that.

Oh, absolutely. Scientists are still the probably the jewel of the complex in terms of science and research development, you know, not only in our national security research areas, but, you know, in all aspects in energy, medical, environmental, you name it, Los Alamos is involved in it. And it's important, you know, because that's how we get the best of the best from the universities. You know, there's no master's degree or PhD in pit building. You know, we get them with interest in other things and so we're able to attract the best by coming up and doing this science work.

And some of them come into the national defense sectors. So it's a benefit to keep doing the great science that we're doing, as well as our critical national security work.

Thank you. Thank you both for your presentations too.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Cole. Councillor

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation this evening. So would all of these changes happen on the existing Lantel footprint?

Yeah. This is all designed on what we're going to do up here in our footprint, which is about a 40 square mile type footprint in the canyons as well as on the mesas.

Counselor, it does include an analysis of an off-site campus for supplemental. But it's very limited to that. But it does have one mention of that. Analysis, I should say. Great.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Herman. I have a couple of questions. So first of all, thank you for being here again. We appreciate, getting the updates in person. And I'd first thing I wanted to ask about was a couple of things that have been the news lately so it had been reported about the number of hits going from 30 to 60 and I just wondered how that related because as we have a lot of discussion about the SWISE how that relates to SWISS. Then the other thing that was reported was about RAD dose limits. I'm glad you talked about the work you've been doing on that and just wondered if there's any comments you could give us about either of those items.

Doctor. Yeah, like I mentioned, we don't set policy. We implement whatever is defined by the President as well as the Department of War. So this wise is based on the nuclear review, think it was back in 2018 or 2019, which had, you know, up to 30 pits here at Los Alamos, by 2028 with a surge capacity of 80 as well as including Savannah River for its 50. So we've designed up to at least 30 with a surge capacity of 80.

And if our requirements are increased or changed, then we would do a supplemental analysis to confirm whatever numbers we're supposed to go to Okay. To implement those national security requirements. Okay. Thank you.

Let's see. So I'm glad you talked about traffic because that's seems like there may be been a little bit of progress, but I was struck by the you know, the head count basically of workers has increased by 10,000 from 2015 to last year. So it seems like we still have a very it's on the edge right so one accident can lead to many hours combined of delay of people trying to leave. So and I think you mentioned like the bus program and other commuter programs and I mean do not necessarily have the information right now but could you share some information so that we could have that information because I know the public is asking us sometimes about you know what are the impacts of you know the head count you know what are the trends are we seeing any people really taking advantage of those other options?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is just like with the council as well as the community. And I live up here in the community as well as with the lab. It's super important.

It's important as a quality of life you know, because I get information from my workers, my workforce, as well as the lab workers. The most terrified part of the day is driving to work and driving home. And so this is something I really appreciate the partnership with the council as well on doing what we can to control traffic, reduce traffic a little bit. Part of that means, you know, speed cameras, working a great partnership with the Los Alamos Police Department in trying to from an enforcement perspective. We also address it from a performance perspective.

I know both the lab director as well as I sort of reinforced the policy that if you're driving recklessly and you get multiple tickets, you know, there's no confidence that you're going follow all the rules when you go into your nuclear facilities as well. So it's a behavioral performance issue that we're enforcing as well to obey the rules to you know, drive, you know, in a proper manner. But then it's also a part of an expansive plan of, you know, minimizing folks that actually have to make that drive up here every day. So we do use remote working, teleworking. There's a lot of people that do not have to be up here if they're into the procurement, the legal, the business and those areas where you don't have to necessarily be in the facilities doing work in the facilities.

You as well as we have a couple of facilities in Santa Fe, Guadalupe as well as Pacheco and those can hold a few 100 employees. So again, minimizing those that don't need to come up here as well as working ride sharing programs in busing. We have some pilot we have pilot a busing pilot, you know, underway right now. But of course this is the Wild West. Know, people don't necessarily want to jump on a bus.

So you have to put a system in place so if they need to get home because of a sick child or something, they have a system to be able to get them home. So it's a complete system to be able to do this as well as we're also looking at housing opportunities. Where can we enter into short term, longer term housing in different parts of the community to minimize the drive? So it's a complete looking at all the things and a great partnership, again, with the council and with the community to try to work this issue because it is a definite quality of life for all of us up here.

Yeah. And safety too is many people that's obviously we just had an accident yesterday. And just really concerned about, you know, with the number of people on the road. So I'm glad you mentioned housing. So so I wasn't aware kind of that scope of Rendia looking at housing.

So

can you expand anymore on that? Is that

Stephanie expand a little bit more. But again, we were looking at various options. Know at one point with that part of land transfer, we were looking at what can we do and where can we build housing. Rendee Canyon is going to be tough. We're right now doing the analysis with the Corps of Engineers.

I think that's going to be probably pretty expensive coming in. Plus, as you know, with the historical use of the Red Dead Canyon by the Department of Army with our own nitrates, the unexploded ordinances, it would be a real difficult task to be able to build housing. I can sort of see that being used for light recreational use. But then we're also based on the input working with county staff, looking at different segments that we might be able to clean down to a little bit deeper, which could be used for other uses. Probably not housing, but maybe mobile homes or things like that or trailers in very selective areas. Did I miss anything?

I would just add that the housing feasibility study came out of the National Defense Authorization Act, kind of concurrent to when we were talking with the county about, you know, what are the uses you would like to see out there. So I think the combination of the two studies will complement each other and give us sort of a definitive path forward for how we can identify the uses for that land.

Doctor. Okay. Thank you. So maybe to follow-up on the micro reactor, maybe I'm miss recalling, I thought that there was well, there was more like an SMR type reactor in the draft SWISS, but maybe it had always been a micro reactor. It was never meant to be producing more than a small amount of power, basically augmenting the combined cycle gas plant or is that the thinking?

Yes. It is, Mr. Chair, my understanding that it was intended for, you know, sort of those emergent energy needs on a smaller basis.

Okay. So thank you for addressing Rendia just generally. So one thing you didn't touch on was the electric coordination agreement. Is there any information you have on on that?

It's a very good question. I Mr. Chair, we coordinate closely with the county on that. I know it was up for renewal. I did not get the status coming into this meeting, but that's certainly something that we can provide in addition, you know, at a later time.

Okay. Our utilities department and managers work in that too. I just wondered if you had any other information. So I think I had just maybe one more thing. I guess you probably are aware, but are you aware that the county is looking for a replacement well for PM3 That would be helping support, you know, some of the needs for water for, you know, the laboratory plus the greater community.

Do you want me to cover?

Okay. Mister chair, yes, that was brought up in our monthly coordination meeting that we have with the county manager. It's sort of, you know, just in the early stages of exploration at this time. So that's really all I can say about it at this point. Okay.

And I guess I'll just echo what Councillor Hapman was talking to you about wildfire mitigation. So four years ago we had Sarah Palado and it just seemed like there was with that emergency status, were some things we could do. Hopefully we can not have to wait for emergencies if we're pretty much prepared. Now, I think that maybe there's it seems like I don't drive on the laboratory, really. But from what I've seen along the boundary, it seems like there's a lot of mitigation there and I assume that it has other places too within the laboratory so that type of mitigation has already happened.

Yes sir, Mr. Chairman. In fact that's something we do continuously because the way you start fighting a fire many years before the fire actually starts. Okay. And so we're continuously doing ground clearing, doing tree clearing, working with the Forest Service and again, we do on a regular basis. As I mentioned prior, we have a type one commander on the staff Yeah. Okay. You know, that advises us on, you know, what we need to do to be in the best position to fight the fire that will happen.

Yep. Okay. Thank you. So I think we will take public comment. So we'll have the same thing. So get the timer up and, looks like there's somebody waiting to make a comment. Please come up and make a comment when you're ready. Just have to state your name again.

Again, I'm Sam Gardner and 191 Dome Road, Nejemus. So I had some questions. I wear this shirt because from what I've been told and what I've researched, the funding for science is now about 15%.

Mr. Gordon, please

Okay.

Know The you want to question's directed to this gentleman, but that's Okay. So in the funding for nuclear weapons development is around 75%. Is that correct?

Pretty close. Mr. Graham, I don't believe he's going to answer the question. So you can pose the questions and we'll

Okay. So getting back to Mr. Williams' comment about we are now in a time when it is as dangerous as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was born two weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember what the Cold War was in Los Alamos as a kid. Susie, do do you remember where where your bomb shelter was?

I I

I don't believe that that was my answer. That was so I'm not gonna answer any more questions. Can see My your bomb shelter was in the basement of the hospital. The other bomb shelter was the basement of the CMR facility, and there was another bomb shelter. But if we are really in those times, if this is an accurate statement, and we are the only place in The United States that is building pits and building new nuclear weapons, we just built a high yield submarine launched, very accurate, autonomous nuclear weapon right out at s site.

And so I guess, the question is, and I just read it on the on the news right before it came as as as president Trump, his secretary of defense, said that there are sleeper cells throughout The United States. Why wouldn't we be a target for those sleeper cells right now since it's the only place in The United States where, again, nuclear weapons are being developed, only place where pits are being developed? And I believe maybe I have this wrong, but we have the highest concentration of weapons grade plutonium stored at the lab. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I'll stop there.

And if Mr. Weigel could comment on maybe if the $170,000,000 that you get from the NSA, maybe some of that could be spent towards making sure that the public is safe from a potential terror attack. And maybe that sounds crazy to you, but it doesn't sound crazy to me right now.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Berger.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other I'm not seeing anyone else. Is there anyone online that wanted to make a comment?

If you'd like to make a comment, please use the raise hand function. Chair, I'm not seeing any other hands raised.

Okay. Well, thank you once again for coming. Appreciate you being here again. So take care.

Thank

you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So

I believe we're on to item number seven, which is public comment for any of the items that are on the consent agenda. So, do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on the consent agenda? Ms. Madison, can you look online?

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

Okay. Thank you. Is there a counselor that can make a motion? Counselor Hand?

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

Okay. So we have a motion by, Councilor Hand and a second by Councilor Herman. Is there any discussion? Okay. Not seeing any. And can you please call the roll?

Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Herrmann? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Reigor?

Yes.

Councilor Havamand? Yes. And Councilor Cole? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. I'll let the record show the motion passes unanimously. We're on to now item nine, which is introduction of ordinances. So we have one ordinance tonight to introduce. 9AOR1117-twenty six, Introduction of Incorporate County Of Los Alamos ordinance number seven fifty three, an ordinance authorizing the lease of rental, a lease of restaurant space at the golf course to the nineteenth Hole Pub LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company to provide food and beverage services. Is there a counselor willing to introduce this ordinance? Ahead. Councilor Herman.

Go you, chair. I introduced without prejudice incorporated County Of Los Alamos ordinance number seven fifty three, an ordinance authorizing the lease of restaurant space at the golf course to the nineteenth Hole Sports Pub LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company to provide food and beverage services and ask staff to assure that it is published as provided in the county charter.

Okay. Thank you. And the public hearing for this item is scheduled at the end of the month, I believe. So now we're on to item 10, which is public hearings. The first public hearing is 10A21307Dash26.

It's case number APLDash2025Dash0023. An appeal application application requesting requesting the Los Alamos County Council to remand the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in VAR-twenty 20 five-fifteen back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and decision. Case number VAR2025-fifteen requested variance approval from front setback standards to install a carport abutting the front property line at 1968 40th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, zoned mixed RM-two. Okay. So there's a little bit of a script for me to read.

So the County Council will now hear a joint motion to remand to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and decision filed in this appeal, which is appealing the decision of Planning and Zoning Commission to deny Barbara Martinez a variance in planning and zoning case VAR2025-fifteen. So this hearing will be conducted in accordance with the development code, which grants the County Council the authority to rean this matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission without full hearing if the County Council finds that a rehearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission will likely resolve the matter. If the County Council grants this motion, this appeal will terminate and the matter will be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing. If the County Council denies this motion, this appeal will continue and the matter will be set forth for full hearing at a future council meeting. So please note that the County Council is sitting as a quasi judicial body and not a legislative body.

As such, public comments will not be made on this matter. So before proceeding, I will poll the council about conflicts of interest in ex parte communications. So first, does any counselor have a personal interest in the case that would conflict with the counselor's duty to act impartially and in the public's interest? And if so, please state your conflict. Okay.

I'm not seeing any okay. The second item is, has any counselor received any ex parte communications about the subject matter of this case? By ex parte communication, I mean communications about the subject matter of this case without the knowledge or presence of all parties to this case. If so, please state what the ex parte communications you receive have received. So any counselors?

Okay. So I want to disclose that this morning, received an email from Benjamin Hill, who was a former funding and zoning commissioner. And I I guess I didn't I provided a copy of this to the the clerk just for the record. Let me just find the title of the email. Should have this up.

Sorry. Okay. The subject line was carports next to sidewalks without any setbacks. So I opened the email and I did not read it. I'd noted kind of the content was related to this matter, so I didn't go anything further with it. So I provided a copy to the clerk that can be included in the the minutes. So I just wanted to disclose that. And I don't know if any of the parties are present and wanted to so Mr. Leipart?

Chair counsel, I'll be up at the podium sort of presenting this case on behalf of CVD and the joint motion and we have no objection to you proceeding to hear this case.

Okay. Thank you.

And Chair? Yeah. Was there any more questions about disclosure that you were going to ask?

If you want to disclose anything else, can do that now.

Okay. Thank you, chair. I didn't have any communications. But I did drive by this address on 40th Street to kind of just get a lay of the land so I could try to be more informed. But then subsequently learned that doing that gave myself, I think, more information beyond the evidence presented for this hearing. So I just wanted to disclose that I did that. I didn't go. I didn't get out of my car. I didn't step on the property. I didn't talk with anyone. I just drove by and said, oh, that's what it looks like. And that was that.

Okay. Are there any concerns about that information?

Chair and counsel, I really appreciate counsel Haberman coming forward with that. I mean, I think it's a common thing sometimes and it is it is, the the issue with doing that is that both parties don't don't have the opportunity to confront the evidence you gathered. That's kind of it. It's like a judge leaving the bench and going to a crime scene and investigating it himself. The evidence received and the knowledge received has to be in the context of the hearing.

Otherwise, you deprive both parties of their right to confront the evidence against them, which is a due process requirement. So that is why we always advise I'm not picking on you, counsel, but think it's a good teaching moment. And I think you appreciate this. So that is why it is not appropriate to do that. It could be yeah. So having had it disclosed, CDD has no objection to Councillor ADMANN hearing this case.

Okay. Thank you. So I think with that, we're ready to proceed. So we already heard that mister Leipart's gonna be presenting. So

Chair and counsel, I will proceed to present this case. I saw I had to get up to the podium because I cannot speak to a judicial body while sitting down. It's just not the done thing. But this case, there are two cases before you. They are in the same

You need to make sure you're near the microphone.

The cases are in the same exact legal posture. Both of these appeals and I'll say this because I don't want to have to repeat it during the next hearing. We can kind of get through that one a little quicker. What has happened here is there was an application for a variance to the Planning and Zoning Commission in both these cases. And there were only five members present for the hearing.

So what happened is at the end of the hearing, there were three votes for it and two votes against. Based on the procedural the rules that govern these proceedings, that you must have an affirmative vote of at least four members to take an action. If they get to the end of the meeting and a decision hasn't been rendered, which is the case here, the application is denied as a matter of law and not on the substance of the appeal. In cases in the past where we have had this, counsel has generally decided to remand the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing with more members present. The motions in your packet are asking the council to do that without full hearing.

This is a practice we have engaged in in the past when these conditions happen. So we have articulated the reasons and the basis of our arguments in the written motion. We do think the condition for granting the motion is the council can remand the matter back without a full hearing if council finds that a remand will likely resolve the matter. Based on the fact that no one opposed this motion and no evidence was entered at the public hearing that contradicted the evidence in support of the motion, we think a rehearing of this matter before the Planning and Zoning Commission with more commissioners present will likely resolve this issue. And based on the arguments in the motion, I would ask that counsel approve or grant the motion as requested by the parties.

Miss Martinez, I believe this miss Martinez is here. This is a joint motion where both the parties have agreed on the remedy. And I think miss Martin is in full support of proceeding this way. That is what that is what the joint motion is. So there's concurrence between the parties about how to resolve this thing. There's a factual basis to do it. And we are simply asking the council to grant the relief we've requested and approve the motion. Okay. Any questions?

Okay. Thank you, mister Lieber. So we can if any counselors have any questions about any of this, we can can entertain those now. Councilor Rieger?

So there is no counterparty to this motion in a sense? There's no one on the other side? This is everybody here is on the same side of the motion.

Chair, counsel Rieger, and that is sometimes the case in legal proceedings when the parties have a matter before a court or a tribunal and come to a resolution themselves. They often present something like this to a decision maker or a judge in the form of a joint motion saying, we believe we have a path forward. We've resolved this. And we would ask the court to grant the relief we've agreed upon. And so that is simply what we're doing here. It's a common practice in this kind of thing where people come forward with joint motions. They resolve their matter and they ask the court or the tribunal for an order granting their relief.

Is there anyone and there's no one present who has the countering an opposing opinion.

All parties are in agreement.

Yeah. Thank thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Councilor Rieger. I don't see any other questions. So so we're as I mentioned, we're not taking public comment on this. So is there a counselor interested in making a motion? Councilor Cole? I

move that the county council without full hearing find the party's joint motion for remand as well as well taken and grant the final order on joint motion to remand to Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and decision. I further move to authorize the chair of the county council to sign the final order on joint motion to remand to Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and decision.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Cole. Any is there a second? Second. Okay. I think I heard councilor Rieger first, but okay. So I don't think we need to have any discussion. Is that correct? Is it okay. So I'm not gonna ask for any discussion. So can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Haverman? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton?

Yes.

And Councilor Herrmann? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So we'll try to get through the next. So we have another matter. And so we have to introduce this second appeal.

So just let me make sure I introduced the correct number here. So it's gonna be 10B21308Dash26. So I'll just read the beginning of this for clarity for the record. So the county council will now hear a joint motion to amend to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing a decision filed in the case, which is appealing the decision of Planning and Zoning Commission to deny Heather and Jacoby Baker a variance in planning and zoning case VAR twenty twenty five dash zero zero one four. So again, we're we're doing the hearing in the same manner as the previous one.

So I don't need to read any of that again. I do since it is a separate case, I do need to pull and see if there's any does any counselor have a personal interest in this case, the conflict with the counselor's duty to act impartially in the public interest? And if so, please state your conflict. Okay. I see no of those.

The next one has to do with, has any counselor received any ex parte communications about the subject matter of this case? By ex parte communication, I mean communications about the subject matter of this case without the knowledge or presence of all parties to this case. If so, state what ex parte communications you've received. Okay. So I've it's the same email as relevant to both. So I assume that the there's no concerns about it for this case.

Being a developed firm has no objections with with Okay.

The chair staying to hear this case. So I think you've already given us some of you. Is there anything else that you need to tell us for this appeal?

Chair and counsel, it is in the same exact legal posture as the prior case. It is a request for a variance for a carport, just like the previous case. The decision, again, was three to two. So that resulted in a denial of the application as a matter of law and not on the substance. And I've said before, prior circumstances, we we've remanded these matters back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a full rehearing. So I'll adopt the same arguments made before. The motions are basically verbatim and would request that the county council grant the motion.

Okay. So are there any councilor questions on this one? Okay. Not seeing any questions. So is there a councilor interested in making a motion?

K. Councilor Goel.

I move that the county council without full hearing find the party's joint motion for remand as well taken and grant the final order on joint motion to remand to Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and decision. And I further move to authorize the chair of the county council to sign the final joint final order on joint motion to remand to Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and decision.

Thank you, Councilor Clovis. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. We have a motion by Councilor Cole, second by Councilor Rieger. So can the click please call the roll?

Councilor Rieger?

Yes.

Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Havamand? Yes. Councilor Herman? Yes. Councilor Reidy? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. And Councilor Hand? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So thank you for the information and assistance with us.

Thank you, Chair and Council.

Okay so we're at 07:30 so we'll proceed to business item 11 business 11 a is 21255Dash26 presentation and possible approval of granting easement and Bio Canyon to department of energy office of legacy management so I think our presenters are online. And Chair, I'll start. Okay. You'll start. Okay. Great.

Chair Reidy, counselors, tonight we are asking the council to consider the granting of an easement, as noted to the Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. The purpose of this easement, in general, is to protect human health and environment by providing current and future owners of the land awareness of the SOAP service radiological contamination. So we have with us remotely, as chair indicated, Alison Coleman, the FUSRAP site manager from US DOE Office of Legacy Management, and Catherine Chester, the Asset Management from US Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. They will give a presentation which will give some history and other details on this item. And let's keep our fingers crossed for good audio.

Allison?

My phone appeared just so hopefully you can hear me. Are you able to hear me okay?

Yes. We can hear you.

Okay. K. Feel free to stop me if at any point that changes. But, yes, thank you, mister chairman, and for the council for having us, and thank you to Linda and the rest of Los Alamos County staff for, the support we've gotten and the work that's been done so far on this easement. So like Linda said, my name is Allison Kuhlman.

I am the food wrap site manager with Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. I also have Catherine Chester, our asset management specialist from the Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management online as well. So next slide. So like I mentioned, we're with the Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. I know being with Alamos County that you all are fairly familiar with the Department of Energy, largely through our office of environmental management and Los Alamos National Lab.

I just wanted to introduce ourselves as the office of legacy management. So we are actually a separate branch within the Department of Energy, and our mission is to safeguard human health, environments, and public properties bound to the nation's post closure responsibilities at former atomic dis defense sites. And so for your purposes, the former atomic defense sites is probably the keywords there. So sites that have been largely remediated, whether by other federal agencies or private owners, but still have remaining radiological liabilities or chemical are transferred to us. So we currently manage 103 sites across The United States.

This map just shows the extent of our portfolio. And so all the way from Alaska down to Puerto Rico. And then we'll have additional sites that get transferred to us after the bulk of their remediation is completed. So today, we're gonna focus largely on our Bio Canyon sites. Next slide.

The Bio Canyon sites are actually unique in that they are two separate sites. So we have the Bio Canyon Aggregate Area Site, which is 350 acres and was formerly known as Technical Area 10 Or T A 10 and was part of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It was owned by the federal government from 1943 to 1967 and was remediated under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act by Los Alamos National Laboratory. And then within the Bio Canyon Aggregate area, there is also a 1.5 acre Bio Canyon food draft site. So Spoozefract is formally utilized site's remedial action program.

So it's sites that were remediated, either by the Department of Energy or by the Army Corps, where radioactive contamination remained from the Manhattan Project or early AEC operations. So that was just a subset within the larger Bio Canyon area site aggregate area site. And you can see the call out there on the map kind of right along the county borderline. The the broader entire Bayou Canyon area aggregate area site as well as the Food Rack area site were used as a firing site for highly explosive experiments in conjunction with research on nuclear development. The detonations dispersed shrapnel throughout the canyon, some of which was radioactive.

Disposal of radioactive byproducts from on-site radioactive chemistry also added contamination. The T A 10 area also contained a radiochemistry laboratory, solid waste disposal facilities, two assembly buildings, an inspection building, a personnel building, control buildings at two detonation control complexes, and contaminated leach pits from the radioactive chem radiochemistry laboratory. So initial remediation of the site was done in the nineteen fifties as well as early nineteen sixties. And then on 07/01/1967, the T A 10 area land as well as the food rep site was transferred by quick claim deal to Los Alamos County. Next slide.

So like I said, the broader site was cleaned up in the early nineteen sixties. The US Atomic Energy Commission cleaned up the Bio Canyon Aggregate Area site to the existing standards at the time. This included demolition of structures, cleanup of surface debris, and excavation of contaminated waste disposal facilities. The bulk of the remediation occurred from 1960 to 1963. Most of the buildings were burned in place, and the ash and debris was removed and disposed of at the main disposal area for Los Alamos complex.

More than 550 dump truck loads of contaminated waste was excavated and removed, and then excavations were backfilled, and the site was regraded. Following that effort, in 1976, Llano or Los Alamos National Laboratory completed a second survey under Foosraf that identified strontium 90, which was present between eight and forty feet below the surface. This then became the 1.5 acre food draft site. DOE then did a remedial investigation, and in 1982, selected action scenario comprising of emplacement of six permanent monuments around the Fuzrek 1.5 acre site and prohibition of excavation in of this area until 2042 when the strontium 90 would be under acceptable standards. You can see on the right here, there's a picture of what those monuments look like up on top, and they have some engravings identifying what they are.

Also surrounding those monuments are four bollards just protecting them there. Next slide. So, again, looking kind of back out on the broader Bio Canyon aggregate area, some additional remediation was done there in the nineteen nineties and 2000, largely looking at removal of shrapnel as well as removal of some surficial contamination. In 2017, NMED issued certificates of completion for all areas of concern and solid waste management units within the BioCanyon aggregate areas. These areas were determined to meet the applicable RCRA standards and so could be released for recreation or residential use.

DOE LM determined based on human health and environmental radiological risk that Bayou Canyon could only be released for recreational use. The site is currently part of Los Alamos County Open spaces and is inaccessible by the Bayou Canyon trailhead. LM conducts a site inspection of the Bayou Canyon aggregate area every five years with a focus on the site condition and upkeep of the bollards and monuments. Our next inspection will occur in 2031. Those inspection reports are available on our website as well if you're interested in viewing those.

In addition, LM's responsibilities consist of managing site records and responding to stakeholder inquiries. There are some additional actions that Los Alamos National Labs conducts on the BioCanion Aggregate area as well. So next slide. In 2019, both the Bio Canyon Aggregate area as well as the Bio Canyon site were transferred to the office of legacy management for long term care and management. Also in 2019, LM partnered with Los Alamos County to remove a chain link fence from within the Foods Rack site.

This chain link fence was put up in place in the nineties to in as part of the effort regarding the shrapnel as well as the surficial contamination. At in 2019, it was determined that it was no no longer necessary. And in removing it, the site was made more accessible for recreational purposes. And then in 2023, LM partnered with Los Alamos County to install three educational signs on the history of the site, the remediation and future uses. There's a photo down there on the right hand.

It's just an example of what one of the signs look like in case you haven't been out to the site to see those. L Los Alamos County has also partnered with LM to complete site inspections, and you guys are more than welcome to come along on our next one in 2031. That's kind of a background and overview of the site and what our current role is and what our role has been throughout history. I'm gonna turn it over to Catherine now to talk about our proposed easement. Christy, it looks like you're still on mute.

Okay. Can you guys hear me now?

Yes.

Yes. We can.

Oh, fantastic. Alright. Thank you, guys. We were having some audio issues earlier. I'm glad we were able to resolve them. Okay. So good evening, everyone. So I'm the Senior Realty Officer for Office of Legacy Management with Department of Energy. So the general purpose of this request is to satisfy Department of Energy's obligation of liability regarding this property. One of the primary reasons we secure real property interest that is recorded actually against the deed is to ensure clearly that you, the property owner, is not perceived as liable in the absence of written documentation for the history of contaminants on this property.

Secondly, is to ensure we, Department of Energy, the responsible party has the access needed to address or monitor our remaining liabilities and ensure the property owner or future property owners are aware of the restrictions in place that protect human health and safety. I'll go over a couple of highlights within the proposed easement that's listed on this slide. Of course, like Allison said, this is about one and a half acres of food wrap site. The county will retain the ability to excavate, but, of course, like it was here, it's no deeper than 6,620 feet of mean sea level for roads and utilities. The property will remain it will continue to be subject to the existing easements, for public roadways, highways, public utilities, etcetera.

And then the office of legacy management will continue to provide the appropriate required notifications for access, permits, licenses, etcetera, that the county requires. It so the easement itself is very simple in nature. It it simply calls out Department of Energy's responsibilities and then the restrictions that, you know, are protective of human health and safety, essentially. So I'm happy to answer, you know, certainly answer any questions related to it, of course. But, otherwise, I'll turn it back over to Allison. But if anyone has any questions about the content of the easement or the purpose in general, I'm happy to go over anything that I can.

Okay. So I think now we're just, see if there's any technical or clarifying questions from counsel. Not seeing any. Okay. So I wanna thank you for I thought it would be useful for the public to have this additional information and get a reminder of what we have in BioCanyon. So let's see. Is there any public comment on this item? Ms. Madison can check online.

If you'd like to make public comment, please use the raise hand feature. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. So is there a counselor interested in making a motion? Councillor Ham.

Thank you, chair. I move the council approve the granting of an easement to The United States Of America as described in attachment A and authorize the county manager to sign easement.

Is there a second?

Second.

So we have motion by Councilor Harris. By Councilor Cole. Any discussion? Okay. Not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Reidy? Yes. Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Rigor? Yes. Councilor Havamand? Yes. And councilor Herrmann?

Yes.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. And I want to thank Ms. Coleman and Ms. Chester for being available this evening in whatever time zone you're in. So we can be able to hear you quite well. So thank you. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Okay. So I think we can keep going. So 11B is AGR 1190Eight-twenty6. Discussion and possible approval of services agreement number AGR20Five-nine91 with ACID Works in the in an amount not to exceed $1,215,000 $609.32 plus applicable gross receipts tax for fleet management software for a five year term. So we have Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, chair ID and members of council. Many times, fleet division is not kind of in the public eye because it's more of a internal service, to our to the county in maintaining, our our fleet, and equipment throughout the county. The mechanics and technicians, do a lot of work behind the scenes in maintaining and keeping our our fleet and vehicles up to par. I'll give a brief introduction to, mister, Pete Mondragon. He's our fleet division manager.

And in case you're wondering, yes, we do call him Pete from Fleet or Fleet Pete. He's been with the county for about sixteen years and been our division manager for the last seven to eight, ten years or or so. So without further ado, I'll hand it over to mister Bandergon to give you a brief overview of this contract. Thank you.

Thanks, Eric, for the introduction. Good evening, chair Reidy, members of council. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight about, our maintenance software and our b GPS contract. For the last fifteen years, we've been using the maintenance software, and it has served us well. In updating our contract, it better reflect how we operate today and where we're headed.

Our needs have evolved, and our fleet and assets have grown. And the way we use the data to make decisions has become more sophisticated. Refreshing the agreement ensures it aligns with our current expect and service requirements and future plans. The biggest enhancement to the contract is the the addition of the GPS functionality. This is a meaningful step forward for us.

With GPS, we'll have real time visibility of our vehicles and equipment, which helps dispatch which helps the, departments dispatch more efficiently and respond faster, whether it's day to day operations, emergencies, or snow events. It improves accountability, gives us accurate usage for rightsizing of the fleet, gives location history, and encourages good driving behavior. It also supports better planning. It can help reduce unnecessary travel time and fuel costs by optimizing and improving fuel optimizing routes and improving field coordination. Overall, it's about it's not about fixing something that's broken.

It's about building on a solid foundation and adding tools that make us more efficient, more informed, and better prepared for the future. With that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay. Thank you, mister. Let's see. Are there any technical or clarifying questions?

Okay.

Thank you for that. I was just wondering how big the fleet is. How many cars? Or

Chair Reidy, councilor Haberman or Herman, sorry about that. We separate them into two buckets, vehicles and components. Overall, we have we support 675. Wow. Okay. So vehicles are right around the 3 It it fluctuates right around between the 350 to 370 range.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, councilor. So I was curious about something that come up a number of years ago when we had the resiliency task force was about idling policy. So when you are knowing where the vehicles are, can you determine if the vehicle is idling for a long period of time and not going anywhere? Because I know there's some vehicles, it's like it costs you fuel to, like, restart them. You know, the buses are kinda like that. You can't you don't wanna be turning them on and off all the time. But is that something that you can do with the GPS?

Chair Reidy, yes. We can we'll be able to tell the amount of idle hours and at any given point or idle time at any given point. I don't wanna say hours, but we won't have the functionality to turn any anything off.

Uh-huh. Okay. So for

yeah. Please. For some of these that idle, a lot of them are they're in roadways. They need to have flashing lights, or they're out on emergency response where Okay.

They're they're supposed to be idling because they're not supposed to be turned off Correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That was only I think I think you addressed the system we had before. So I don't think there's any other questions. So we can see if there's any public comment. No comment?

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

Okay. Thank you. So is there a councilor making a motion? Councilor.

You, chair. Excuse me. I move that council approve services agreement number AGR25Dash991 with AssetWorks Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $1,215,609.32 plus applicable gross receipts tax for fleet management software for a five year term.

Thank you. Is there a Okay. Second. So we have motion by councilor up and second by councilor Cole. Is there any discussion? K. Not seeing any. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Hefferman? Yes. Councilor Reidy? Yes. Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

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

Okay. Let the record show the motion pass unanimously. Thank you, miss McCormack, for the presentation and working on this. Thank you.

Thank you, chair, members of council.

CHRISTOPHER So I think I'm going to suggest that we take a break since we have a few minutes. I think we have more than a few minutes left in the agenda. Some people might want a break, I think. Okay. So we'll take a ten minute break.

Okay. So we're we're back in session, and we're up to item 12, which is council business. So 12 a is general council business. 12 a one is 208-1526. It's consideration and possible action on the 2026 Los Alamos federal priorities. So I think we have our intergovernmental affairs manager, Ms. Duran, here. So did you have a few remarks you wanted to make when we get started?

Chair Reidy, council members, I thought I would just briefly go over what has changed in this year's federal agenda draft from last year's authorized or approved federal agenda. Okay. So very quickly, I think almost every year, this council approves a a set of federal priorities that includes a statement that we, as the county, support the Department of Energy and its mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Nothing has changed in that. Regarding the cleanup efforts, we have over years requested specific cleanup areas, including TA 21, MDAT, Rindia Canyon.

I think this year, we're very focused on the replacement water well. And I think that is reflected in one a three one, increase the budget to ensure safe drinking water for the laboratory and the community. We are also continuing to ask for support for the electric coordination agreement and other essential operations that the county provides to the laboratory. Something new is item two, support for Los Alamos County's WIRDA or Water Resource Development Act request for replacement water well. This is actually an item that we have submitted through senator Lujan's office asking to be put on the list of the Army Corps of Engineers.

That does not include funding until there is an actual, inclusion of an appropriation for that line item. But getting on the list means that the army corps of engineers has has that project on their work list. So it is just one option for getting the planning and design of the replacement water well actually, submitted to the federal government and then paid for. This is not the only way or the only vehicle that we're using in in order to try and find funding and a path forward on that replacement well. It is just one option that we are making an effort toward.

The other thing that's new, item three, is very similar to past years. Item four, which is support efforts for new nuclear nuclear research, including SMRs, fusion technology, and reprocessing, and collaboration based siting. This is something that has been pursued sort of, through NACO and the National League of Cities in the past, and we're making it official by putting it into the, federal priorities. And then the last thing that is, slightly new is the congressional legislations to support wildfire mitigation, wildland firefighting, post fire assistance, and wildfire insurance initiatives. And, specifically, the federal working group considered senate bill twenty four thirty sponsored by senator Heinrich, which is the wildfire insurance coverage study act of 2025, and that would, direct the GAO to do a study of possibilities for restructuring the way wildfire insurance is provided to private citizens.

I think item six is the same as what we've had in our federal priorities in the past, and that's for a grant program within the DOE. The next item, we also usually have, but we have two projects on this list that might be different from the past, and that that is the community health action center and the replacement water well. They are both items that we would consider for congressionally directed spending and other programmatic funding opportunities. And as the county management looks over its its other projects, they made you know, there may be a decision to include more items for federal funding or federal requests. And the final item is something that, the federal working group agreed to put in this year's federal priorities, which is to support the efforts by NACO and NLC, which is is National Association of Counties and National League of Cities, to maintain county and city authorities and oppose any efforts of preemption or reduction in local government authorities.

As you know, voting, for instance, zoning, for instance, all of these things have come up at the federal level as possible areas of preemption, and both NACO and the National League of Cities oppose that. And we are just putting our support behind it.

And that's all I have for you.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Rand. I think I was neglecting to mention two things I should have mentioned before we when we started. So one thing is that the Ranicus I think stopped a little more than a half hour ago, but the Zoom is still functioning. So the Zoom recording can be used for the meeting record when that comes gets posted later. And also we have a green sheet for this. So it's only the the words that are highlighted in yellow in our green sheet, is that one I I I that adds an NNSA cleanup budget because that's where the funding for Rendeea comes from.

Chair Reddy, that's correct.

Okay. So just so we have a revised slightly revised document. And so does any members of the federal work group have anything they wanted to add?

No. I'm I'm just saying that I mean, I like the way these turned out. I really appreciate your efforts to coordinate all our comments and and get them incorporated. Thank you.

Okay. I think I see one other thing I'd mention something that since the NACO meeting was just, I guess, last weekend. So something else that's come up that has been supported by NACA was permitting reform. And that was something actually so we got to go to some meetings that were through the try not to use the acronym. Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems, UAMPS.

I coordinated meetings with our delegation that both I and Mr. Rand attended. Mr. Shelton was making the presentation, and one of the items he was requesting was action on permitting reform and among some other things that were more utility specific. So that's not something that we've had on our list from we're all one county, right?

So utilities have been asking for that. And there are resolutions supporting that from NACO and I'm sure from NLC as well. So I think that the document's probably plenty long enough. If that were to come up as a topic, would know we would be supporting it. But I just wanted to mention that as something else that we could consider. Okay. Are there any technical clarifying questions from the rest of council on the federal priorities for this year? Yeah. Councillor Admin.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Ann. Just to follow-up on your comment, Chair Reidy, Other than I think you said we want to keep this document concise and maybe not add more to it, I think permitting issues when it comes to energy production is really an important topic. So I don't see why we wouldn't add it. Unless there's a reason, I'd prefer we put it on here.

Okay. But yeah, we can certainly yeah, on

I just chair Reidy, councilor Hefferman, I think that there is only one thing to consider is that there is significant, debate right now, among many because although I think bipartisan, you know, across the board, people support, permitting reform, it's been clear that, for instance, offshore wind would not receive the same support as other kinds of energy. And it is a point of contention that is happening within congress right now. So you may want to consider that there are some points of contention that we would deal with if we were wanting to support that. And it might have to be sort of a modified. If you are interested in supporting things like offshore wind as well, you might want to add a modification of just a general statement.

Okay. So

Yeah. Thank you. I guess I was thinking permitting reform in terms of, like, transmission lines and,

you

know, citing of solar arrays and battery sites and stuff like that. I guess I wasn't thinking that way. But I hear you. I understand. So I don't know. I I guess maybe it needs to be fleshed out. But this is the first I've even thought of it till you, you know, we've

Yeah. We hadn't it's been something that's been one of the things in the policy committees and so maybe we could add something or we could just understand that it's something that I think we would support. But if we don't have it in this document, then technically we shouldn't be like highlighting it in our meetings with our delegation or with the departments. So, yeah. We could try to add some language that's fairly general and supporting all forms of, in permitting form that supports all forms of energy production and transmission, something like that.

But I think there's but it is for the whole year, there'll so be other opportunities to talk to people about this. So maybe there'll be more opportunities later. So without having to come back and change this, maybe we should try to figure out if there's something we could add without wordsmithing it here. But if there was an interest in modifying it to add something, we could be part of the motion.

Chair Reidy, Councilor Haveman, might I suggest that both NACO and NLC are supportive of permitting reform for everything, and we could add a general statement much like the preemption item stating that in the area of permitting reform, Los Alamos County supports the position of NACO and NLC.

Yeah. I I was thinking it fit could fit in. It's a little awkward to maybe word it there, but we could figure out some wording in the in there since that's second that that works. Okay.

Yes. That that sounds like a good solution. Thank you.

Okay. Any other technical clarifying questions on the document? Okay. Not seeing any. So is there any public comment? And not seeing any in the room. Is there anyone on Zoom?

Sure. I'll just alt c. If you like to make public comment, please use the raise hand function. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. Thank you. So is there a counselor that would like to

I can take it.

I'm not sure.

Got a case. Maybe.

I

move that council approve attachment b, draft twenty twenty six Los Alamos federal priorities as amended. Second.

So does that include the discussion tonight? Maybe you want to mention as discussed amended as discussed tonight.

Okay. Thank you. I move that council approve Attachment B draft twenty twenty six Los Alamos federal priorities as discussed this evening and amended.

Okay. Thank you.

Second.

Okay. Great. Thank you. So we have motion by, Councilor Herman and second by Councilor Hand. So any other discussion?

Okay. Not seeing any. I just thank Mr. Rand for her efforts on this. So and the rest of the federal working group. With that, can the quick please call the roll?

Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Riegoer?

Yes.

Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Haberman?

Yes.

Councilor Herman? Yes. Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. And councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. I'll let the record show the motion passes unanimously. Okay. Now we're on to 12 A2. Twenty one thousand two hundred fifty one-twenty six.

Consideration and possible approval of council's work plan review working group recommendations on the board and commission work plans for calendar year 2026. So we have our work group counselors Herman and Neil Clinton. So would any of you like to start with any overview or any other information?

Thank you, chair. First, I do just want to say thank you very much for everyone's time on this. I do want to say thank you to all of the, citizens that serve on these boards. There are

a lot

of people that are engaged and, we did go through all of the, work plans and there are a few items that we do just want to bring up for discussion this evening. The first is that we discuss the possibility of a quarterly review for all of the boards and commissions of their work plans. I guess the idea was that it just seems to go a very long time over the course of a year without them taking a look at the work plans. So we just wanted to bring that up for discussion. I thought that maybe the staff liaison could review it and take a look and see just to kind of keep everybody on track.

Well, I was just gonna ask what what that review would look like. It's not gonna you're not suggesting they resubmit them to the working group? No. Okay.

Basically, think what we were talking about is that the boards would monitor, you know, the activities that are going on within their, board or commission and make sure that they're on track with what their approved work plan is. So we we I'd like to add that, you know, we talked about developing a statement which would introduce the plans a little more than what we currently have to, give them some idea of how their work plans fit in the bigger scheme of things with the council strategic leadership plan, the management plans that are developed by all the departments and that this provides some mechanism for justification of funding when budgets are being devised and prioritized and approved. And so that they really understand the importance of developing these work plans, over time. And that's why the monitoring of it over a quarterly basis would become more important because it would be tied into all these other, aspects of of the way that we manage and and, prioritize all our work.

Okay. Thank you. Thank counselor Nathan's got her hand raised.

Thank you, chair. Yes. I just wanted to add that the the reasoning behind having the quarterly review is that when we looked up the information provided, we felt that to look at it at the end of the year, making it cumulative instead of incremental would be easier for the input of information. It will be fresher. It will be cleaner. And then they would be able to add instead of thinking about going back and possibly missing things. So that was the logic behind it.

Okay. Thank you. So so I guess the process for doing something like that. So the work plans don't have that process. Right? So, miss Nasson, do you have something

Chair and counsel, my recommendation would be to ask the chairs of the boards and their staff liaisons to place an item on their, you know, monthly meeting, approximately once a quarter that says review plan so that they can start to gather information of what they're accomplishing. They can be reminded of what they said that they were going to accomplish. So I think to me that's a

way to start.

Okay. That makes sense. So that isn't and so that could be added to all the work plans or we just understand that we would be doing that? But then we don't need to modify the work plans, right?

Chair, I don't believe we need to modify work plans. Would think it's something we could discuss at one of the actually, think we have a board and commission lunch Like coming up. So In a

couple days. Right. Okay. So we'll mention it then. And then does that work for the work group to handle it that way? Okay. So we'll make sure it is discussed there and then ask that it's added to the agenda about once a quarter. Not every board maybe meets the same frequency, generally monthly, but not always. So we'll just give them more a little more flexibility there. Okay. Were there any other topics that

Yes. Thank you. There was one other topic. The Environmental Sustainability Board has let us know that they need some guidance from, the council regarding the plastic bag either ban or fee or what direction we really want to be going with this. So we'd like to have a discussion about that as well.

Okay. So that probably would be it is in the work plan. So it's are we thinking we need to make that a council action?

Chair Reidy, I think that was the thought. I talked to Ms. Kurule, and we talked about a upcoming council meeting where council could maybe give some direction.

So we'll make sure that gets on the tickler for a future meeting.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. Any other issues that came out of the review?

Not for me. I do just oh, I wanted to say thank you to Jackie Salazar and Linda Madison for their help with this. But Linda has her hand raised.

Oh, okay. Please.

Chair, counsel. Just two other things that I know the group talked about. They did want to start work on just some little tweaks to the template, trying to see what has been working and maybe not working. They were going to try and start that summer, fall time frame or actually, time frame, I think. So be on the lookout for that. And then secondly, they were so efficient in their work that we had time to also review the board and commission application.

Mhmm.

So I have a red lined version of that. So I'm creating a draft of that, and we'll send that back to the working group, in the next few days.

Okay. Great. So I did notice in the package tonight that there was a little bit of a hybrid. So for reapplication, it looked like a part of the document was dated 2018. And one of the I could go back and find which one it was. But one of the applications, there were people that were reapplying and there was like a because, you know, the questions are a little bit different when they reapply versus apply. So that was something I'd asked about, making sure that we have at least the same template for the interview questions. So it looks like that's still maybe a little bit work in progress.

Okay. Chair, I will look at that.

Yes, please.

I just want to say that I I do remember that we did have a different form for people that were reapplying, and, I think it it's because some of the questions, when you're first applying

Yeah.

Don't make as much sense. And so that's why it was modified, but we probably need to take another look at it and make sure that it makes sense now that we've gone through the the first, you know Yeah. Application.

Yeah. I believe that the one anyway, I won't state for certain. But it looked like I had some of the old questions on the form because it's the reapplication. And like, well, what was your major accomplishment and whatever things like that.

Right.

And what recommendations you have for improving things? Okay. So I let's see. I the only things I noted were we had the girl scouts that came to talk to us about park equipment. And maybe it's premature for that to be in the work plan because we're waiting for the inclusivity task force.

So but that'd be a case where we would you know, maybe other ones. But, you know, they mentioned working with the Inclusivity Task Force, but there was no mention about looking at that, like play equipment. So I'm happy leaving it as it is and recognizing some or others will have to be updated. Does that make sense? Chair.

Chair. The staff has took that to note and so is actually meeting with that Girl Scout troop in the near future Okay. If I'm not mistaken, and also has made some changes at at one of the parks to show a swing of that time.

So Okay. Okay. Well, that sounds good. Then in planning and zoning, I noticed that the comp plan was listed. But my understanding is that chapter 16 code updates at least be started to be vetted.

So shouldn't both of those be in the work plan? Maybe it's inherent that they would be anyway, but so that would be just adding the chapter 16 code updates, not just the comp plan. And I guess I also was noticing the keyboard didn't have any specifics with regard to inclusivity, but maybe that's also something that's come up before and maybe we'll just address that once we get the report. Okay. So I think there so in terms of changes to the work plans oh, I guess the other thing I noticed, Arts and Public Places was the one that did make mention of the length of the terms and the number of terms.

And they talked about process for approvals. It was like areas for improvement. So, I don't know if there's any action that's expected.

No. The charter working group is meeting with

our that could be addressed for that. Okay. Okay. So I think I just had basically the minor change to planning and zoning then. Okay. So if there's no other comments or questions, I guess, let's see if there's any public comment. Someone in the audience has been on a number of these, maybe worked on a lot of these work plans. Probably have highly valuable oh, I made somebody move.

David Hampton. So the comment about the Transportation Board and inclusivity. So I was authorized by a vote of the board to make final changes in accordance with what the board wished. So I don't think anybody would object to us adding inclusivity.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, there's two changes then. So Okay. Thank you. So do we have any public comment on Zoom?

If you have a public comment, please use the raise hand function. Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. Is there a counselor interested in making a motion recognizing that, I guess, there's a couple of changes? Councilor Cole. I move

that council thank all boards and commission members for their dedication to public service and approve the twenty twenty six work plans as amended from the following boards, arts and public places board, transportation board, lodgers tax advisory board, planning and zoning commission, personnel board, parks and rec board, library board, Los Alamos County Health Council, historic preservation advisory board, and environmental sustainability board with the understanding that this approval does not represent formal council budget approval of all projects, proposals, or potential recommendations listed in the work plans.

Thank you, councilor Cole. And is there a second? Motion. There's more on the motion.

Oh, sorry. Let me continue what I was saying.

Oh, there is.

I further move that council approve the continuation of BNC annual presentations to council and direct the county manager to notify the boards and commission chairs of this requirement and the approval of the 2026 work plans.

Okay. Thank you, councilor call councilor Han for us not neglecting that important part. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. So, we have a motion by Councilor Cole, second by Councilor Herman. Is there any further discussion? Obviously, the motion says we thank them, but I really appreciate everybody's work on the working group and all the others well over 100 people involved in boards and all their work with the staff support and all the people that come to their meetings as well. A lot of them have their own working group. That can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Herman? Yes. Councilor Haberman? Yes. Councilor Cole?

Yes.

Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

And councilor Hand? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. Okay. So now we're on to item B, which is appointments. The appointments were all done under consent. There were several of them. C is the board and commission vacancy report, 121178Dash26. So it's attached, I think, having to do with the date when this was published is '26. So I think there are there are vacancies coming up on planning and zoning. Isn't that right?

At the end of this month now that it's now February March? Yeah. So I think that there are three vacancies coming up on planning and zoning. Okay. So item D is board and commission reports. Do we have any councilor liaison reports tonight? Councilor Kaufman?

Thank you, chair. Yes. The Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 25. And, they elected well, they actually reelected their chair, Karen Easton, and vice chair, David Hampton. And, we were supposed to have a or not we.

They were supposed to have received a presentation, regarding the Los Alamos County development code chapter 16 article four, division eight regarding signage, but that item was postponed to the April 8 meeting, FYI. There will not be a planning and zoning commission meeting on March 11, because there will be two open houses open to counsel and the public and other board members, etcetera, regarding updates to the comprehensive plan. It will be similar, I think, to the presentation we all received about, I don't know, three or four weeks ago. Open houses will be March 11 at 05:30PM here in Chambers and a second one on March 12 at 12:30PM at the White Rock Library. And that's all I have regarding planning and zoning.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'll second. Do have any other no. K. No other reports tonight?

No. Actually, there there's an an additional one. The plant the personnel board met on the February 24. We had one interviewee, and it is my understanding that it was I thought it was supposed to come to counsel today for the appointment. But we did meet, and we had one person to interview.

Okay. Thank you. I think that one was not one of the ones on the list tonight. Right?

No.

It was on there? Okay. Okay. So that one's been already dealt with. So thank you for that. Any okay. Counselor.

I just wanted to mention that I attended the February 19 meeting of the Environmental Sustainability Board And some of the topics that were discussed include the presentation of the final of the final fleet conversion community wide electric vehicle charging plan with possible action. There will be a recommendation to County Council on March 17. Basically, presentation was passed unanimously by, the ESB. And then, there was discussion on appointments and, for liaison assignments. And there's a number of, you know, different boards where they wanted to have a liaison for better interface and communication.

And then basically the chair's report, from David Hampton. He talked about reviewing the development code for green building codes, and that's about it. That's about it that I have in my notes.

Okay. Thank you, counselor Young. Okay. So I think we're done with that item. So, it's not the end of the month, so we don't have a written report. Does the county manager have anything for us tonight under item e? Okay. So, f is the council chair report. So I had a couple of meetings. So I had, February 18, I had a meeting with some citizens about the North Mesa Recreation Master Plan.

They're interested in the process for how that might be proceeding and the best way to advocate for those projects. Also, on the eighteenth, we had a meeting with environmental management one. So, the assistant secretary for the Department of Energy that's responsible for environment management and also EM too, so their deputy. So they came and had a discussion with us and wanted to hear a little bit about our priorities. And so the discussion related to the items we had kind of our federal agenda that we've had before.

So hex filling chromium plume and the water well and we talked a little bit about Rendia Canyon and Technical Area 21 down DP Mesa. Then there was meeting the next day with our congressional delegation just to get an update on federal activities that are ongoing. And we talked also about WRDA, so the Water Resource Development Act funding request with them. And then, of course, we all got a tour on the twenty sixth of the Chamisa Elementary. That was nice to see that basically complete.

So I think that's all I had. I don't see any questions. So item G is approval of counselor expenses. So I believe that there are some expenses that like to be approved. Is that correct?

Do you want me to I can state what they are if you want me to. So, there's two meetings with National Association of Counties and one meeting with New Mexico Counties. And there are a bit of time off. But I guess to make counselors aware of them and to get expenses approved. So what I have are May is the National Association of Counties West Interstate Region Conference in Maui County, Hawaii.

On June is the Mexico County's Annual Conference in McKinley County, New Mexico. Then July is National Association of Counties Annual Meeting Annual Conference in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. So, I think what we've typically done is request for expenses for up to three counselors. Not that three counselors would be going to all these, but so that's what I have. Is there any other think we'd approve the Main Street one.

I'm not sure if anyone's decided to go to that yet or not, but we approved that one already, I believe. So is there a councillor interested in making a motion regarding the three meetings I stated? Councilor Rieger?

I move that we approve up to three councilors to attend the four meetings that excuse me, the three new meetings that we've discussed here, the two for NACO and one for the New Mexico Counties.

Okay. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. So we have motion by Councilor Rieger, second by Councilor Ammann. So any discussion? Yes.

So I'm a little concerned about approving this far in advance without having a chance to talk about budget. Budget. Right. And it it I mean, optics to send our folks to Hawaii. Anyway, those are just my concerns, so I'll probably vote against it since it's kind of early.

Okay. That's fair enough. Okay. Any other discussion? Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Neil Clinton? Yes. Councilor Hand? Yes. Councilor Herman?

Yes.

Councilor Reidy?

Yes.

Councilor Rigor?

Yes.

Councilor Haberman? Yes. And Councilor Cole? No. Motion passes six to one.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes six to one with counselor Cole in opposition. So item h is the preview of upcoming agenda items. So that's h one two one one seven six dash two six. So we have the tickler report of upcoming agenda items.

So I think we have added one item, the plastic bag, single use plastic bag action. So are there any other items that counselors would like to see added to the ticket? Okay. Is there anything that councilors would like to highlight? We did hear about a couple items coming from ESB.

And obviously we had the introduction of the ordinance tonight for the lease at the community building, the golf course. So that'll be coming up at the end of the month. So, okay. Not seeing anything else. So item 13 is councilor comments. Are there any councilor comments tonight? Councilor Rieger.

Thank you, chair. So I was wondering if anyone what is going on with the planning and zoning where we have the have the half the commission missing and then we the three to two votes when we have nine people on the commission. So at least four are missing the meetings. Is that what's happening? Are they so people have essentially quit early?

So I'm not sure if we can have too much discussion now, but I believe that we have a full commission.

That's what the date that's what it says.

Okay. Counselor yeah. So we have counseling Newkland. Did you want to address this, or do you have something separate?

I have something separate.

Okay. So without getting into the discussion on at this point, I believe that there is a full commission. Although I did notice note that there are three positions that expire at the end of this month. And I think the, interviews must be going on on that. So that's enough for now. Okay. Counselor Han?

Are you taking additional comments on other subjects?

Taking comments on whatever you want to say.

So one of the other things that I forgot to mention is that I attended the Northern Area Local Workforce Development Board CEO meeting on February 18. And, you know, we basically approved some bylaws. We also approved, the CEO agreement with amendments and, went through, you know, other standard agenda items. I started attending these, in December, and they didn't have one in January. But I look forward to being a participant on this particular board in the future. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Han. So, Councilor Neil Clinton, do have a comment?

Yes. Thank you. So counselor Hand, counselor Reiger, and myself toured the fire departments, and I just wanna say how impressed I am with our our our operations. The information we learned about their level of education, areas of specialties, their collaborations, It it was it was really quite impressive. I just wanted to to give them kudos because they were excellent hosts.

Everyone was very engaged, and we just really had a great time in it, and I learned a lot. So I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that, councilor England. Any other councilor comments? Okay. I think, we're on to adjournment. So if there are no objections, we are adjourned.