Los Alamos
I wrote the Council today (Saturday) to express my objection to the recommended approval of the project (Broadband) without adequate public input and engagement.
The proposed project involves undertaking $35 million in public debt and entering into a business arrangement that will affect the daily lives of businesses and households for decades to come. A Friday afternoon partial document dump with a recommendation for a rubber stamp decision four days later may meet "the letter of the law" but is inappropriate if the County seeks to be perceived as transparent and welcoming public input. The project page on the County website shows no project updates for more than 10 months and only one instance of public engagement, which was in 2022 at a preliminary stage of the project. The selected proposal has not been shared on the project page or in the agenda documentation. The proposal evaluation team appears to have been entirely internal County staff and contractors without the benefit of any citizen or local business community participation.
If the County wishes to be transparent and engage public input, I asked the Council to take the step to have an open public forum to provide the public the opportunity to become acquainted with the specific proposal, ask questions, and provide input before considering the proposed motion. This cannot help but improve public confidence in a Council decision on this matter. This is a longstanding project, and engaging the public will take a relatively short time.
I have several questions that are important to me to understand answers to before I can support the proposed motion. I asked our County Councilors to take an interest in asking the questions and helping citizens like me to understand the answers:
Enhancing and supporting our local small business community has been a priority that has been communicated through the last two National Community Surveys. Was this priority reflected in the procurement actions by the County, and if so, how? Through the proposed contract, the County proposes to use public funding to, essentially, compete with at least one longstanding local business. Was consideration given to how this project could provide direct business opportunities for local businesses or, alternatively, could negatively affect local businesses? Was any consideration given to how negative effects on local businesses could be mitigated? If not, this will be important to do if we are serious about supporting our local business community.How can existing infrastructure already in place and in service by current ISP's be utilized to reduce construction costs, speed up the project, and reduce disruption of construction activities to the public?Has the County received any inquiries or expressions of concern from local businesses about the project? How were those inputs used to form the project?The RFP required proposers to "include letters of intent from all candidate ISP partners outlining their plans to provide services and their anticipated pricing or pricing models." At least one letter of intent from an ISP partner with its service offerings and pricing model was required for a proposal to be responsive to the County RFP. Did Bonfire provide the required letter of intent and what did it say?Who is Bonfire and what is their track record with completing projects such as is proposed in Los Alamos? My brief search indicates it is a fairly new company and I could not find anything indicating its ownership. I only found one project they have been involved with which is with the Southern Ute Tribe.Has the County performed any diligence with ISPs to verify the validity of the sample rate tables presented? Do ISP's concur that the estimated fee ranges assigned to their work are realistic?The materials shared do not describe the County financial model. From what I can tell, the County proposes to provide $35 million to Bonfire over the life of the contracts. Other than the $10 per month per customer maintenance reserve fee, it is unclear whether the County expects to collect any other revenue from the project. The County would borrow $35 million that unspecified GRT revenues would secure. Would the County service the debt from its annual operating budget or some other source? Does the County expect incremental GRT from the project, and if so, what are the projections?Does the County plan to approve entering into the $35 million debt by Council action, or will the decision to incur the debt be subjected to a public referendum? Will there be public forums before such action to inform the public about the financing costs, risks, and expected benefits and provide public input?Is it true that GRT revenues from LANL activities are expected to sharply decrease? What is known about the LANL GRT situation and what are likely projections for County GRT revenues during the expected life of the debt? I am concerned with incurring debt to be paid with GRT revenue without analysis presented as to projected future revenues and expenses.The staff presentation suggests that design work would begin right away, well before the decision to undertake the debt required to pay for the work. What would be the source of funds for paying for this work in the event the bond issuance is not approved? By approving the suggested motion, would the Council be committing the County to incur the debt? Shouldn't the contracts wait until there is an approved source of funding for them?The broadband project could be a good approach, but the stakes are too high to proceed without a serious attempt at public vetting and participation. Please encourage the Council to engage and involve the community in this important decision.
