By PETE SHEEHEYLos Alamos County Councilor
Former County Councilor Robert Gibson makes some valid points in his recent letter “County Council Puts Government Before Citizens,” about the County’s Federal Legislative Agenda.
However, much of his objection is based upon text in the Agenda that Council specifically instructed staff to revise. He credits Councilor Henderson and myself for expressing reservations about the portion of the Agenda discussing why the county would benefit from continuation of a “for-profit” LANL contract ($17M/year in GRT revenue), but overlooks the revisions in this section that the Council unanimously required.
The final text of the Council’s adopted Federal Agenda is available on the county website here.
As can be seen, the rewritten section on the LANL Contract Rebid does make the case why a for-profit contract will help the county continue to partner with LANL to attract the best people to perform the Lab’s nationally important mission. That $17M in revenue significantly helps the county to provide good services and facilities, while holding local taxes to a relatively low level.
I cannot answer for previous Councils, but since I was elected, we have worked hard to get maximum value from dollars invested in capital improvement projects. For example, we sent back the original Teen Center and White Rock Library, Senior and Youth Center proposals because they were too expensive. After re-scoping, we were able to build excellent facilities that serve these needs for about half of the originally estimated cost.
I do agree with Mr. Gibson and others that the primary criterion in choosing a new Lab contractor is its ability to perform the complex mission of the Lab in the most effective and efficient way. The cost difference between a for-profit vs. a non-profit contract pales in comparison to the huge costs that can be incurred from management failures to perform hazardous Lab operations safely and efficiently.
The citizens of Los Alamos have benefitted from the low tax burden, while the for-profit contract supplemented County revenues. If a new Lab contract reduces or eliminates its GRT contribution to the County budget, we can and would adjust, by increasing efficiency, eliminating lower-priority services, and/or raising GRT or property taxes. In today’s federal budget political atmosphere, we cannot expect a return to any of the subsidies the federal government once provided to our local government, before the for-profit contract was implemented.
In advising our federal elected representatives and administrators, it’s our duty to point out that a $17M/year disruption to County revenues, plus a $34M/year disruption to State revenues, would impact our ability to continue a constructive partnership with the Lab. It is my hope that a new contract can be negotiated that will benefit the County, the State, and the Nation.