This week’s County Council meeting may be standing room only!

During the upcoming County Council meeting Tuesday Aug. 8, the County Council is going to propose passing the items of the REC Bond, which were rejected by the County voters in May.

The two Councilors presenting the items for approval, James Chrobocinski and Vice Chair Susan O’Leary, are the subjects of a County investigation into an Ethics violation for their involvement in these items. According to the Los Alamos Daily Post (link), a complaint has been filed stating that both were involved in a Political Action Committee, or a PAC, named Los Alamos Futures, which was promoting passage of the REC Bond initiative, hence a potential conflict of interest. That initiative would have directly increased property taxes to partially fund five recreation projects.

Los Alamos County voters rejected the REC bond, and its associated property tax increase, 53 percent to 47 percent.

The Los Alamos County Council has taken it upon themselves to interpret the vote to mean that the Los Alamos County voters really wanted the recreation projects, they just didn’t want to pay for it out of a direct property tax increase. So, the County will use Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds over the next three years. Guess where the CIP funds come from? Instead of an overt tax increase tied to the REC Bond items, they’ll raise property taxes when they find themselves short of money.

Speaking of interpreting the vote, my recollection of the voting process was FOR or AGAINST. I must have missed the WHY part of the ballot. I am so relieved that our elected Council brings clairvoyance to the process. Or is it that they wanted it to pass? And with enough of those that lost the vote explaining to them that those against it really meant to check the FOR box, that it was a simple misunderstanding about property taxes, then that makes this OK. Ignore the outcome of the vote?!?!? The whole voting process is more what you call guidelines than actual rules, is that it? NO meant NO.

Just like the County voters choosing to keep the County Sheriff. The County Council (Pete Sheehey) has interpreted the votes to ‘mean’ that the voters just wanted someone to sit in the office that had the word Sheriff on the door. The voters didn’t really intend for the Sheriff to do anything, so the County Council is trying to pass a resolution that makes the position more or less honorary and not really a law enforcement position. By the way, unlike the Police Department that more or less answers to the County Council, the Sheriff’s Office is an entity with oversight and independent investigation authority, which means the Sheriff’s Office can investigate the Police Department and the County Council. See why they decided that you didn’t really mean to vote for a Sheriff?

For those REC Bond supporters that think they should be jumping with joy that this topic is not yet dead, remember that allowing a government body to ‘interpret’ your vote makes your vote worthless. You may get what you want now, but the cost of allowing your elected government to slide down this slope creates a precedence that will not always work in your favor and a momentum from which there is no turning back.

If this item was not enough to get you to come to the bi-weekly County Council meeting, the County Council is going to consider (consider = PASS) a rate increase on your water and sewer rates. The same County Council that delved so deeply into the recent rate requests for trash pickup, for all of about 30 minutes, and PASSed it, is going to consider this measure. Just so you are aware, the County Council tends to PASS all rate increases, every year, from the same departments. They may tell you that the Board of Public Utilities does the evaluations and that the Council’s hands are tied. Really?

The County Council approves the applications for members of the Board of Public Utilities. The County Council has the authority to send any request for a rate increase back to the BPU. It is just easier for them to pass it than to require a comprehensive assessment of how the Department manages its monies. Don’t be fooled by any lone NO vote that doesn’t reasonably attempt to sway the other votes. It is easy to be the lone NO, as you know it will have no effect when the rest of the Council votes YES.

During summer months, the residential users will have an increasing rate based on usage, but the County and businesses will pay the same flat winter rate for any amount that they use, anytime. I guess that means that only the residents of Los Alamos County need to conserve water. We know that these rates would otherwise have a negative effect on all the REC bond projects and their water demands.

With regard to the Sewer increase, we are told that it is needed for the White Rock water treatment facility. In reality, it is being used to refill the cash coffers of the various Utility departments, THEN to get financing for the White Rock facility work. If it is truly for the White Rock facility, tie it to that project and have it go away when that project is done. That’s accountability!

I think we need to replace the Councilors with those who represent the interests of the voters and make the County departments accountable, not the other way around. I think we should show them what an actual vote can do versus what they think it means.

The link location for the County’s Agenda and Agenda Packets for the Council meetings are at: https://losalamos.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx.