Climate Action Plan adopted
County Council tackles climate issues, fire station location, open-space concerns
At Tuesday’s regular Los Alamos County Council meeting, which lasted past 10 p.m., Council made several significant decisions — most notably, adopting the county’s first Climate Action Plan and selecting a location for the new Fire Station 4.
A climate “encouragement” plan
The Climate Action Plan passed 5-2, with Councilors David Reagor and Melanee Hand opposed. Though titled an “action plan,” the final version focuses heavily on encouragement rather than mandates — a shift made in response to public feedback. The only remaining mandate affecting the broader community involves green building standards.
“This is a plan, and it’s not binding Council for future projects or even funding,” said County Manager Anne Laurent, noting that all future actions would require approval from the County Manager and Council.
Councilor Hand, while supporting the plan’s intent, seemed unconvinced by Laurent’s characterization of it as non-binding. “Many details still seem lofty or unreasonable to implement,” she said in her explanation for her “no” vote: “I must weigh the cost vs. benefit of many other important priorities, such as safety and health, recreation, housing, roads, and budget stewardship.”
Councilor Reagor also voted against the plan, citing Los Alamos County's greenhouse gas emissions as a “negligible” contribution to global emissions. (In other venues, Reagor has repeatedly stated that he believes the scientific consensus on the effects of climate change is but a “fear campaign” and not an actual concern.) In Tuesday's meeting, he questioned why natural gas1 wasn’t included as a green energy source, citing the EU's controversial 2022 decision to classify some natural gas projects as “transitionally sustainable” under specific emissions limits. While the EU’s move2 was intended to help transition away from dirtier fuels like coal while ensuring energy security, it faced significant criticism from environmental groups who argued it could undermine climate goals.
When Reagor expressed concern that the plan would force neighborhoods to convert to electric appliances if their gas infrastructure failed, Los Alamos County’s Sustainability Manager Angelica Gurule and County Manager Laurent countered that Los Alamos County prioritizes safety and maintaining existing infrastructure. Gurule also reminded Reagor that the plan was modified to include voluntary measures and education rather than mandates — essential since recent federal court rulings against natural-gas bans have made cities leery of adopting those bans.
Finally, Reagor also expressed concerns about the impact on low-income residents. However, the plan explicitly calls for utilizing federal and state funding programs to help offset costs for vulnerable populations. The CAP also points out that climate change disproportionately affects those populations (see image below).
Staff made a final appeal to Council to adopt the plan: “I think it’s important just to have a plan,” said Utilities Manager Philo Shelton. “So that when you apply for grants, you have something to point to…You’ve got to start somewhere.”
The plan’s principal guide, Gurule, called on Los Alamos to do its part. “Though Los Alamos may be small, we hold a leadership role within our state and can inspire other communities to follow suit,” she said.
Fire Station 4: Original location wins out handily
The Fire Station 4 decision proved less contentious, with Council unanimously electing to rebuild the station at its current Diamond Drive location. Public input favored that option, with residents near alternative sites strongly opposing those locations. The $13-14 million facility will replace the outdated 1964 structure, providing proper decontamination rooms, gender-specific facilities, and modern HVAC systems.
Open space concerns
In other business, a proposed “minor zone map amendment” to the Development Code sparked controversy when several residents raised last-minute concerns about perceived threats to open space. The concern was that the changes might inadvertently give the Planning and Zoning Commission3 the power to unilaterally rezone public land without proper public oversight or Council input.
County Manager Anne Laurent sought to offer assurance that such concerns are unfounded: “I could not think of a scenario by which [a rezoning proposal] would end up in front of the Planning Commission in which it hadn’t already come to Council for some sort of other decision around development or sale or something,” she said.
County Attorney Alvin Leaphart explained that when P&Z makes a quasi-judicial decision, they make “findings of fact based on the law of the evidence presented to them,” not mere recommendations. He said the Development Code contradictorily says both P&Z and Council are the “final decision-making authority” on minor zone changes.
“What problem is this new ordinance solving?” Reagor, who is Council liaison to P&Z, pressed. “It’s kind of what we already do.”
Leaphart gave a crisp answer: “The problem we are solving is that our code is incoherent.” He explained that the original intent was to have P&Z make final decisions on quasi-judicial matters while Council serves as the appeal body.
Unconvinced, Reagor maintained the ordinance was unnecessary — then surprised other councilors by claiming P&Z has no actual authority: “It’s like all the other boards,” he said. “It’s a recommendation to us, and then we still make [the final decision], the same way we always have.”
Chair Denise Derkacs quickly corrected this misunderstanding: “I did want to clarify that the Planning and Zoning Commission is more than an advisory board,” she said. “It has decision-making authority. It’s important to clarify that information for the public.”
Finally, Leaphart addressed concerns about public participation, explaining that standing to appeal is quite broad under New Mexico law — while those within 300 feet automatically have standing, others can demonstrate standing by showing how they’re impacted.
Multiple councilors expressed their support for the measure. Councilor Suzie Havemann said her reading of the ordinance is that it’s meant to streamline processes and make things less bureaucratic for property owners — while preserving the right to appeal to Council. Councilor Cull, explaining her vote, said, “This is really just clarifying what has been in place … it’s not a new change to give Planning and Zoning additional authorities. It’s a change to clarify what their authority was supposed to be to begin with.”
The measure passed 6-1, with Reagor opposed.
Staffing turnover
The Council also heard about ongoing staffing challenges in the Community Development Department. In her County Manager report, Laurent addressed the recent resignation of CDD Director Paul Andrus — the latest in a string of 2024 departures, including Economic Development Administrator Dan Ungerleider, Planning Manager Sobia Sayeda, Economic Development Program Manager Janice Krish, and Senior Planner Jane Mathews. (Mathews has since returned to CDD.) Laurent said that while the County recruits replacements, CDD duties will be temporarily split between herself, Housing and Special Projects Manager Dan Osborn, and new Economic Development Administrator Shanna Sasser.
Board and Commission appointments
The Council handled two board appointments in different sections of the agenda. Paul Lisowski’s appointment to the Transportation Board was approved smoothly as part of the consent agenda with no discussion, as he was the only applicant. In contrast, the Planning and Zoning Commission appointment involved a contested decision between two candidates. After some debate, the Council voted 4-3 to appoint Marlon Brown to the commission.
Other matters on the agenda
The Council also handled several financial matters, including:
● Approving a contract for electric golf carts ($819,239)
● Authorizing an agreement for on-call roofing services ($2 million)
● Agreeing to electronic bidding software ($1.24 million)
● Revising cemetery fees, including reinstating a non-resident fee
Finally, the Council formally terminated its economic development agreement with Pebble Labs after a state review found the company hadn’t met job requirements. Though Pebble Labs generated funds for the state ($1.25M) and county ($1M), they agreed to repay $750,000 in state funds.
The EU today announced a new partnership focused on accelerating “a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels,” including natural gas.
Note that the author of this piece, Stephanie Nakhleh, is a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission but does not speak for the commission here or anywhere in Boomtown.
Reagor wastes so much time with his refusal to accept the science of Climate Change. Hmph.