Los Alamos County Council voted 5-2 to pass on purchasing three properties shown here Wednesday morning on Diamond Drive. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com
By KIRSTEN LASKEY
Los Alamos Daily Post
kirsten@ladailypost.com
Plans for Los Alamos County to purchase the properties at 1183, 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive were shot down during the regular County Council meeting Tuesday night.
The motion to purchase the Diamond Drive properties for approximately $9.8 million failed to pass 5-2; Council Chair Denise Derkacs and Councilor Keith Lepsch voted in favor.
County Manager Anne Laurent initially presented to council the property owner’s offer to sell the land during the Nov. 19 meeting. She reported that while the assessor valued the properties at $5.6 million, plus an estimated $1 million in sunk costs for abatement, demolition and site improvements, the property owner was selling it to them for $9.8 million and requested a close of sale by Dec. 17. Buying the land, Laurent said, could be an opportunity to construct a social services hub, which has been identified as a long-time need in the County.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Social Services Division Manager Jessica Strong expanded on the idea of constructing a social services hub.
With 5.5 FTEs, one full-time and one part-time health care specialists, two full-time case coordinator positions, one management analyst and Strong, all office spaces in the current location are full. The team has full plates; Strong said that 2024 saw 177 new clients and there has been an average of six visits per client.
In brainstorming what could improve social services division, Strong said, “… we approached it from people come into our office, we can build trust with them … if we refer them to someplace else … we’re still trusting that when they leave that door, they are going to do the follow up. Once they leave, we don’t know if they call LA Cares and get their emergency food provision, we don’t know if they make it over to Self Help … we don’t know if they make it over there and fill out their paperwork and get the financial assistance. So, in the big picture brainstorming, what if there was an expanded food pantry that had distribution more than once a month … Or what if it had something like … where all the volunteers cook all the fresh produce and package it up … (or) having additional office space for visiting behavioral health providers … if we are thinking big, the idea of a coordinated resource area … some place to get free clothing, a diaper bank, menstrual products … and really one of the initiatives across the state is coordinated resource centers.”
There aren’t a lot of options of where to put such a facility, Laurent said. Of all the County-owned properties that are not designated as park or open space, most already have plans for development or are being negotiated to be sold.
Many comments made by the public seemed skeptical about the purchase; while most seemed in favor of a proposed social services hub, a strong dislike was expressed by several for the price tag as well as how this purchase would impact local landowners and businesses.
“My takeaway is that good intentions and hard work cannot turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse,” Los Alamos Commerce & Development Corporation Executive Commitee member Bill Wadt said. “…the key points from my perspective are as follows; one, the property owner does not appear interested in investing in Los Alamos. Two, to my knowledge the owner did not engage with the business, education or healthcare communities in development opportunities. Three, the owner seeks to leverage a prime location to realize an exorbitant return from the County by insisting on a closed process. Accepting the owner’s offer would damage the County’s relationship with businesses and developers that do want to invest in our community and will make needed development more difficult by driving up prices and incentivizing land speculation. Therefore, I urge the council to vote against the proposed purchase agreement.”
Samizdat Bookstore and Teahouse Owner Jill Lang advocated for the purchase.
“I do not believe it is appropriate to require the government to apply the same monetary rubric to its actions as private for-profit businesses,” Lang said. “Local government has a different mandate than private business. Private business ultimately exists to serve the financial interests of private ownership. And while those interests may overlap with the interests of the public there is no guarantee of convergence. Our county, the richest in the state, is littered with vacant and decaying buildings…”
She added that she feels the property would be in far better hands with the County and be developed in the service of students and residents. Los Alamos resident Kevin Holsapple said he felt there was no rush to decide on buying the property.
“That land will be there … it will be sitting empty, there is no development plan and there still won’t be a development plan,” he said. “There is no rush to make any particular decision on this. This artificially created crisis that would only benefit the current owner and will not benefit the community in any way is really standing between you and getting good public input on what a good decision would be on this.”
Former Councilor David Izraelevitz said he felt the price is a key issue of contention.
“In making your considerations … we are always asking DOE to give us more land for redevelopment, and they keep saying they don’t have any,” he said. “Suppose some enlightened future DOE Secretary decides to purchase land from a private owner in Los Alamos and donate it to the County. Would we take it? Well, it depends on what the land is, what its use might be … what about some downtown property that might address a strategic need? I don’t know whether payment of this premium is worthy of the strategic uses for property. I know we desperately need a social service hub … we have money that we can use to move our strategic goals forward. And maybe one of those opportunities where money can buy us what DOE and even the private sector can’t give us.”
Councilor David Reagor opposed the purchase, commenting that he felt the purchase of the land and constructing a social service hub are two separate things.
“The County social services hub is separate from the purchase,” he said. “The purchase by itself is just buying land, there is a lot of things we can do with a social service hub. This is not really connected to the same thing … nobody knows that they are going to build a carwash – that is just speculation … so we’re not choosing between those three things. What we are choosing to do here is pay an awful lot of money for a piece of land way above valuation.”
It looks corrupt, he added, and an inappropriate use of public money.
Although Councilor Suzie Havemann made the motion to approve the sale, she said she would not vote for it.
“In my mind this is not a land grab or empire building by the County,” she said. “I think this is the County being proactive in trying to make something positive happen on land that has been unproductive for some time now,” she said. “And while I know the purchase price is well over the assessed value, I would like to mention one point … it is reasonable to presume that a fully developed, multiuse project on these parcels that includes more than a social services hub … there could be many other uses and benefits from this property that could benefit the community in many ways.”
However, she said she would not vote in favor, pointing out that the majority who spoke about the sale expressed opposition. Still, Havemann said she would continue to advocate for the social services hub as well as housing for everyone. Vice Chair Theresa Cull asked County Attorney Alvin Leaphart to address the public claims that the property purchase violated State law. Leaphart referenced a memo from the New Mexico Finance Authority, dated Aug. 30, 2022, clarifying that “there is well-settled law that negotiating contracts like this are exempt from the anti-donation clause.”
He added that the New Mexico Board of Finance rule does not apply to Los Alamos County. As a home-rule incorporated county, Los Alamos is considered a municipality.
“The claim that the County is violating the code is simply demonstrably false,” Leaphart noted.
