More comments

Given that there is a petition drive to overturn it, I thought the
group would be interested in some summary information about the
County action that the petition seeks a referendum on. Hopefully
this will help readers be more informed about the issue.

Kevin Holsapple, Executive Director, Los Alamos Chamber and LACDC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have noted recent criticism of the County Council approval of
general authorization of bonding to pay for capital improvements.
The criticisms were short of understandable rationale, so I would
like to offer several observations about the Council action.

The Council approved general authorization for borrowing (issuing
bonds) to support implementation of the County's approved capital
improvement program. The capital improvement program includes
considerable detail about the potential projects that may be funded
by the bonds. Even so, the Council action specified that the capital
improvement program must be updated with more specific details before
any debt will be undertaken -- the merits of the projects will be
considered in detail by the Council in public hearings before any
commitment to expend funds on them is made.

Why then did the Council approve the general authorization? Why
didn't they just wait for the updated capital improvement program?
The Council was being responsible in putting the County in position
to move ahead rapidly as warranted depending on the merits of the
updated capital plans. Stretching out a a serial process of
approvals in an environment of increasing interest rates would not be
prudent. There is no downside to the County being prepared to move
rapidly in the event it makes sense to do so. Whether it does make
sense or not will be the subject of future public hearings.

If issued, repayment of the bonds relies on current Gross Receipts
Tax (GRT) collection expectations. There are no future GRT
expectations from the projects to be financed that are being counted
on to fund repayment of the potential bonds. The County is
not "betting on the come."

The bonds will not require raising either property tax or GRT rates
from the currently existing levels in order to facilitate repayment.
The County action will not change tax rates. The current GRT rate of
6.9375% (raised to that level earlier this year) is low relative to
other communities throughout the State. For instance, when shopping
in Espanola you incur GRT of 7.5% and in Santa Fe 7.625%. Los
Alamos ranks 31st lowest out of 33 New Mexico counties for property
tax rates. The only counties with lower rates are Catron and Taos
counties. Implications that our tax rates are in some way out of
control does not square with the facts.

What are the projects in the capital improvement program that the
bond funding could be used for? The largest amount, $50 million, is
alocated for the Trinity Revitalization/Airport Basin Project. In
addition, $12 million is allocated for the Perimeter Bypass Road
Project and $13 million for various other capital projects such as
road and street replacement, parks and recreation, skateboard park,
golf clubhouse, and contingency as needed. The reason to group these
together is that there are significant transaction expenses
associated with bonding -- we save transaction costs by grouping.
Again, updated plans and information is required to be brought to the
Council in public hearing before any funds could be authorized for
any of these projects.

Insinuations that the County Council has been irresponsible or
imprudent in taking action to prepare for implementing the approved
capital improvement program are way off base. To the contrary, our
Council has taken a thoughtful, rational approach to preparing for
potential capital investment, has maintained our tax rates at lower
than average levels, and has committed to future public hearings on
the merits of individual projects within the capital improvement
program prior to expending any public monies.