Los Alamos County Council members from left, Council Vice Chair Theresa Cull, Council Chair Denise Derkacs, Keith Lepsch, Melanee Hand, Randall Ryti, Suzie Havemann and David Reagor. Courtesy/LAC
By KIRSTEN LASKEY
Los Alamos Daily Post
kirsten@ladailypost.com
There were two items with big price tags on Tuesday’s Los Alamos County Council meeting agenda. After five-and-a-half hours, one was approved and the decision for the second postponed until the next council meeting.
The first item in question was the $35 million contract to design and construct the community broadband network (CBN) along with the $15.9 million contract to operate the network. The second was the potential purchase of property on 1183, 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive for $9.8 million. The two contracts for the broadband network passed 6-0 with Councilor Melanee Hand absent and a motion to continue the public hearing on possibly purchasing the properties on Diamond at the next council meeting also passed 6-0.
County Broadband Manager Jeremy Smith provided some background on the CBN project.
In his presentation, it was noted that since 2021, the council’s strategic plan has included a CBN goal and action plan. The Broadband Manager position was created in 2021. A study and a survey for CBN were conducted in 2022. In January, Smith reported that council directed staff to pursue a procurement option for CBN with the following factors: can actually be implemented; permits open access; allows the County to retain ownership or have the option to obtain ownership; provides the option of fiber to any premise belonging to a resident who subscribes; and will be built promptly.
He noted that the project spreads to the region. In March, the council approved $2 million matching funds for a state grant for San Ildefonso Pueblo for an 11 mile “middle mile” project to provide a second fiber optic line up the hill that will be used by the CBN. Additionally, the N.M. 4 Waterline Replacement project includes collaborating with San Ildefonso Pueblo to place fiber conduit in the trench as part of the larger 11-mile project.
The purpose of CBN is to build and operate the fiber-optic network to all homes and businesses, according to Smith’s presentation. The vendor will design and build the network to 10,014 locations, or passings, and will build the portion from the curb to homes, or drops. The project cost allows for doing 60 percent of drops, to be done when a customer orders service. It was emphasized that the vendor will operate the network, not the internet service provider. Four to six internet service providers will be contracted on the open access network. Residents who order the service choose which internet provider they want. Finally, the operations agreement will be an initial five years, with three five-year renewal options for a total of 20 years.
The $35 million design/construct project will be funded through gross receipts tax revenue bonds. The price for residential customers will depend on the internet speed they request. The staff presentation listed estimates that range from $50.50-$54.79 for 250 Mbps up to $85.02-$100.69 for 50 Gbps. For commercial customers, the estimated prices ranged from $75.79-$88.39 for 250 Mbps up to $188.88-$239.17 for 50 Gbps.
Former New Mexico Broadband Access and Expansion Director Diana Lindstrom praised the County for its “forward thinking” and that “you are going to have this wonderful community broadband network if you vote on that tonight.”
Not everyone was 100 percent supportive of this project.
“We have provided fiber optics for 27 years, so we know that fiber is the way to go,” Los Alamos Network owner Allan Saenz said. “Through the many years of the community broadband project we have been supportive (of it) because I believe that Los Alamos … needs to have this infrastructure for so many reasons.”
Still, Saenz said he has many unanswered questions.
“…we continue investing in installing conduit or installing (at) apartment complexes – that is part of our business strategy. With this presentation and the existing contract, I don’t know where to go. Should I continue investing, would I be competing, would it be possible to collaborate and bring costs down and connect people faster?”
Saenz said he hoped the council could postpone deciding on the project until these questions could be answered.
Council Vice Chair Theresa Cull made the motions to approve both contracts.
“The biggest concern I am hearing currently is competing with existing providers especially our local provider and that issue, according to county staff, will be addressed during the design phase,” she said. “We can look at what is currently in place, and it will be looked at and determined how to utilize it or reimburse the small business or small businesses for what they have already done. I am inclined not to delay this decision any further…”
While community broadband has been in the planning stages for years, County Manager Anne Laurent said that the offer to sell 1183, 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive happened unexpectedly in August.
She said the property owner contacted her to see if the County would like to purchase the land parcels, which includes the lots that were the sites of the former Morning Glory Bakery and Metzger’s gas station as well as the building that houses the County’s social services, Gracie Barra Jui Jitsu and Enterprise Bank & Trust ATM.
Although the sale price is $9.8 million, down from the asking price, Laurent reported the assessor valued the entire property at $5.6 million. The owner is asking to close the sale by Dec. 17.
The offer seemed worthwhile, Laurent said, because it could satisfy a long-time need in the county to have a social services hub, plus the potential to develop some more housing and retail spaces. If the county does not buy the property, then the owner plans to develop it to generate long-term revenue. It isn’t known what exactly that would be, but Laurent said the owner’s business is car washes.
Laurent said the County purchasing the lots could be a community benefit; it could address priorities such as housing, mental health and more retail options, that are ranked high by the council and the community.
“It is really a strategic purchase,” she said.
Plus, there isn’t a lot of competition for commercial development; Laurent noted that since 2016, only five new commercial developments have come to town.
“What new commercial development are we competing against if it is non-existent,” she asked.
The public’s response toward this agenda item was a firestorm of criticism toward the council and the County. People said they were dissatisfied about how they only found out about this real estate sale a few days before the scheduled meeting and said they were not at all optimistic that the County would successfully develop the property given that the past attempts haven’t yielded desired results.
“The transparency bothers me,” Los Alamos developer Shannon C’de Baca said. “…retaining existing business is a County expectation and goal and they are not doing anything to assist the local landowners in their fostering of small business. I had to fight the County at every level to bring in small businesses.”
She said at the new Starbucks location, she lost selling the property to Panera and Wendy’s because of “County draconian interpretation of codes, lengthy permit processes and stacked permits. It is difficult to be a developer in Los Alamos.”
Los Alamos resident and former County Councilor Antonio Maggiore also expressed dissatisfaction.
“This idea and this narrative that is being spilled that the County is good stewards of their land and good stewards of investment on the land needs to be look at not through rose colored glasses but real actual history…this doesn’t work,” he said.
Los Alamos resident Kevin Holsapple questioned the sale, too.
“I think there are a lot of great comments for you to hopefully pick up on,” he said. “I thought it was brilliant that the points were made about the things that are asked of small business to bring a project forward … and what they are asked to do or not asked at all when it comes down to looking at internal projects of the County, and I think that’s a great standard to look at … to build trust. Hold yourself to the same standards that you are holding other people to.”
On the council end, Councilor David Reagor motioned to reject the land sale offer but the motion failed 5-1.
Councilor Suzie Havemann said she wasn’t ready to vote one way or another; emphasizing social services, student housing, residential housing are all needed and this property purchase could be an opportunity to provide for them.
Councilor Randall Ryti agreed, saying waiting two more weeks for the next council meeting will not harm anything. The next council meeting is Dec. 3.
