Google Plans Ultra-High Speed Service

Do you support bringing higher speed broadband service to Los Alamos? If so, you have a chance to participate in an initiative to attract the attention of Google’s “Fiber for Communities” project. The recently announced project is described by Google as an experiment that they hope will make Internet access better and faster for everyone. Google plans to test ultra-high speed broadband networks in one or more trial locations across the country.

“Our networks will deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today, over 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections,” according to the announcement from Google. “We'll will offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people in one or more test communities.” Google says they will invest to build out the required infrastructure in the selected communities. Governments and municipalities have until March 26th to express their interest by responding to a request for information (RFI) from Google.

The RFI has gathered the attention of the County government, LACDC, and others in the community who have already been conferring bout the possibility of a response. “The County must decide if they will submit a response, and we know that they need to follow their established processes in making the decision,” says LACDC and Chamber Executive Director Kevin Holsapple. “A role that we will try to play is to move ahead with helping our community to understand the opportunity and to make it easy for people to communicate their support.” A web page has been established at www.FiberUp.org to provide information about the initiative and how to get involved.

In addition to RFI responses from municipalities, Google is looking to hear from individuals, businesses, and other organizations in interested communities. One of the features of the FiberUp.org webpage is an easy link to the Google form for nominating the community. “If people are interested in this, it will be important to have as many nominations as possible submitted before the RFI due date,” says Holsapple.

Ultra-high speed connectivity and service is envisioned to enable a whole new class of services including such things as high-definition video, remote data storage, real-time multimedia collaboration, and other applications that we cannot yet imagine. It will enable new consumer applications, as well as medical, educational, and other services.

Potential County Charter Revisions: Questions and Common Sense

submitted by Dave Fox

Potential County Charter Revisions:

Questions and Common Sense.

On the most basic level, here is a list of just some of the questions that each of us who are registered to vote in Los Alamos County need to answer seriously for ourselves, as we seriously consider whether we actually benefit by having our County Charter changed; and changed so that an election will be required once a yearin every year that one or more capital projects of a million or more dollars is proposed.

Keep squarely in mind that the documentation would be prepared to the 60%- designed level. And be fully aware these documents would be required to be mailed to every voter. Think blue prints. Think pages of structural, electrical and plumbing details and the like.

Picture 13,000-some voters opening a package of million dollar project details, knowing they’re supposed to read , understand and vote on them.

Understand that an electrical outage in Los Alamos just before the recent Holiday Season cost almost that much by itself.

Now here’s the list of questions for each voter to ask:

How much material, in weight or pounds, do you imagine will have to be mailed to your home so that you will be sufficiently informed to vote knowledgably?

How likely is it that enough of us Los Alamos registered voters will read the documentation so that we reach the level of understanding that actually makes it worth the money and staff time it would take to prepare of all the documentation the Charter changes would require?      

How much taxpayer money, do you think, will have to be spent, on average, just to mail the materials to all of us?

How much taxpayer money, do you think, will have to be spent to prepare all the documents that just a single million dollar project would require, much less the prep for a multi-million dollar project?

Does this design-prep and mailing step seem like a sensible thing to require, when you realize that this step will add extra cost to any capital project that is approved?

Do you know what and how many documents will be required to be prepared, then mailed to you, if the petition wins?            ….especially if there is more than just a single million dollar project?

How much time do you think you will actually spend to do the reading necessary for an informed vote?

Do you think the time-demands of your job and your family life will provide also enough time for you to actually do the reading that the Charter-revision people

believe will result in an educated vote?

Do we truly believe a developer of new retail shopping would seriously think twice about developing here instead of in a development-friendly place, there being some tens of thousands of other options between our national shores?

These questions are gut-serious questions. But they aren’t the only ones we need asked and answered.  An exhaustive set of questions that exposes the many probable ramifications needs to be prepared so that we voters know what to expect under any proposed Charter change that would shift this County’s government from a representative form of decision-making to a form that puts the responsibility for micro-management in the hands of a committee of 13,000 plus voters.

A Common Sense Act of Due Diligence

A vote to change our Charter should not be permitted until the “exhaustive-question” list has been created and its answers are spelled out, then publicly and widely discussed, with a final, officially agreed-upon list of questions and their answers to be developed by due process and communicated county-wide.

To allow a vote without such an exhaustive examination of implications is to ask us citizens to wish earnestly, but vote blind on Charter revision.

The remaining question: does the Charter Review Committee perform this act of due diligence- the list compilation? Or does the County Council?

Protecting Our Town

By Bill Godwin

From a systems point of view, Los Alamos consists of two thoroughly interdependent parts – the lab and the town. I stress the word “interdependent”. The town exists because of the lab, and the lab is the primary economic engine of the town, the largest employer. The town needs a healthy lab to survive. But the lab needs an attractive town to attract and retain high-quality staff. Without a well-funded lab, the town would be in trouble.  But without a vital and attractive town, the lab would be in trouble.

However, despite being the third wealthiest county in America, Los Alamos has historically been remarkably resistant to funding civic improvements. School bonds have failed more than once (and our dilapidated school buildings show it), the civic center proposal was voted down by a healthy margin, and one hears continuous grumbling about everything from the costs of planting trees along Central Avenue to supporting the Aquatic Center to the Trinity Place proposal. I think this is because many people see and judge these as individual decisions – they don’t see the whole systems picture.  A recent proposal to revise the County charter suggests subjecting capital projects and real estate matters to cafeteria style elections would further fragment decision processes.

Los Alamos Laboratory, like any high-tech research facility, depends upon a steady inflow of bright young talent to keep healthy and productive, and to replace retirements.  There is a lot of competition across the country for that bright young talent, and it will tend to go where young families can find good schools, good libraries, attractive living conditions, and a lively recreation life. So the long-term health of the laboratory is directly dependent on how attractive and vital our town is.

And just as important, from the point of view of a homeowner in the town, our property values depend directly on how well the lab is doing, which depends on the quality of the lab staff, which in turn depends pretty directly on how willing we are to fund things like good schools, good libraries, good recreation facilities, and things which make the town attractive to the bright young talent that is the lifeblood of the laboratory. Saving a few mills of property tax may in the long run cost us far more in decreased home values.

So the next time there is a proposal to spend some money or float a bond or raise our taxes to improve our town in some way, look at the whole system, not just the immediate proposal. Remember that a town which will attract new families is not an expensive luxury for us; it is a necessity if we are to compete successfully for the bright young lab talent that keeps the lab – and our property values – healthy.

No ROI Without Investment

By Steve Laurent

Our local economy is 97% LANL-related.  While an amazing statistic, it’s certainly not surprising, and it makes achieving a more economically self-sufficient community a very tall order.  Increasing retail opportunities and improving our economic diversity requires new investment, both private and public. 

Let’s begin with the private investment problem.  Since most of us stayed in school much longer than most and chose to work in the private sector, let’s assume risk aversion is a given.   Therefore, we’ll look at private investment through a role play in which you can invest in a retail opportunity in one of two locations.

Opportunity A, in a city of over 200,000, is in a new strip development containing a Walmart and several chain businesses.  The mall serves not only the growing neighborhoods nearby, but also traffic from the freeway.  Its advantages are many, including a brand new building on cheap land with lots of guaranteed customers.  Its risks are few. 

Opportunity B is in a smaller town of 20,000, located on an island a short ferry ride from Opportunity A.  Most residents work in commercial fishing, the island’s only industry, but the industry pays well and the residents are by no means poor.  The islanders are a captive audience, with cash, who are craving retail opportunities. 

While the potential rewards of investing in the island are great, the risks are equally high: you will be gambling on the long-term health of a one-industry town; your business must break the cycle of islanders traveling to the mainland for goods and services; the only available site on the island is a tired old building with less than ideal parking or storefront; and rents are higher on the island because land is scarce. 

So which opportunity do you choose?  Surely most would choose A as the safer bet for your money to grow.  But if you’d rather place your money on B, then congratulations - you’ve joined the ranks of our successful local retailers.  It may be time for you to open a shop on the Hill!

Like it or not, Opportunity B is how many entrepreneurs view Los Alamos – a risky investment.  If we are to increase retail opportunities and diversify our economy, we must overcome both the real and perceived hurdles that arise from our being an “island” on the Pajarito Plateau.
The playing field must be leveled if Los Alamos is to compete for new business.  This is where the public aspect of local investment comes in. 

If you think that you don’t have to deal with our economic diversity dilemma because you’re not investing in Los Alamos, then you’d better think again.  We are all investors in our community because we spend (at least some of) our money here.  We all invest indirectly through our local government which collects tax dollars.  And again, like it or not, our County government has an important role to play in making our community a more attractive business investment.

In traditional communities (i.e., everywhere except Los Alamos), the primary role of government is to act as service provider and health/safety regulator, and private capital runs the engine of business.  Not so here.  Our transition from a government town to private community has burdened government with many traditionally non-governmental tasks, not the least of which is catalyst for creating a self-sustaining community – townbuilding if you will.

Because private capital is reluctant to invest in Los Alamos, our local government must incentivize growth and diversification through the application of any number of strategies (e.g., tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, low interest loans) that are worthy of a separate editorial’s worth of discussion.  As the County implements such strategies, regardless of our ideologies we as taxpayer investors have essentially only one question to ask: Will the government program provide a good return on our investment?  In the business world, ROI is the acronym for return on investment.  “Roi” also means “king” in French, and ROI should be king here in Los Alamos as we look to create a more diverse economic future.   

Our duties as residents and investor-taxpayers are twofold: (1) to support new and established local businesses; and (2) to support government efforts to attract new business.  This will require some investment of local tax dollars.  While the expenditure of tax dollars as economic incentive may be unpalatable for some, knee-jerk reactions against such investment can be short-sighted and costly to our long-term future.  Let’s make sure that ROI becomes a standard part of all of the conversation moving forward, recognizing that the short-term investment of tax dollars can sometimes bring a great long-term return.

In the year to come, in which many difficult decisions will be made about our County’s economic future, let’s commit to remain open to diverse and new ideas, and keep ROI at the forefront of our dialogue.

Move Ahead with Muni Building

Stan Primak, Chair
Kendra Henning, Member
Municipal Building Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee

On January 28th at 7:00pm at the Community Building, our County Council has municipal building site selection on its agenda.  The Municipal Building Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee looks forward to discussion and a final site selection decision at this meeting.

The Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee enjoyed the opportunity to serve our County to select a new municipal building site that will host a symbol of our community, provide an efficient facility to serve County employees and residents, and enhance our County’s downtown and economic development goals.  Our committee of 16 members evaluated 25 prospective building sites with the help of many County staff and outside economic and architectural consultants.  We participated in 10 meetings, hosted 5 community outreach events, and used a rigorous, well-documented process.  Our evaluation centered on 13 detailed evaluation criteria given to us by the Council.  In summary, the criteria were:

• Best Fit for Building/Parking Requirements, 
• Project Cost, 
• Project Schedule, 
• Economic Development Opportunity, 
• Conservation of Views/Open Space, 
• Impact on Surrounding Properties, 
• Optimal Utilization of Land, 
• Redevelopment of Blighted Property, 
• Support for County Master, 
• Comprehensive, 
• Downtown and Economic Development plans, 
• Achieving LEED Silver Building Criteria

Our meeting schedule was published, meetings were open to the public, and all committee data (including the detailed selection criteria) and discussion was regularly posted to this public County website and is available for your review at any time: www.losalamosnm.us/PROJECTS/

In October 2009 our committee delivered a comprehensive final report to Council.  We responded in detail to Council’s questions about our process and our reasoning for evaluating some sites more favorably than others.  In the end, our Committee recommended two sites as our top picks for the new municipal building: Site 6, the former location of the Los Alamos Apartments on Central Avenue; and Site 13, a series of existing commercial properties consisting of 1247 Central Avenue plus 1360 and 1372 Trinity Drive.  Based on Council’s site selection criteria, the committee determined these two sites to have the most benefits and least shortcomings of all 25 possible sites with no close runners-up.

Many residents are aware that the municipal building effort has been ongoing since early 2007 when plans to demolish the old building started taking shape.  Since the building was demolished in 2008, County employees have languished in transportable buildings scattered across town compromising their efficiency of operations both internally and for the public.  These transportable buildings have blighted the downtown landscape, and cost the County considerable money in rent. 

New building site selection and plans for a new building was started, completed, and aborted once before in 2008.  Over a minimum of three years, thousands of man-hours and considerable dollars have been spent by Council members, County staff, outside consultants, local commercial property owners, site selection committee members and residents to provide input and achieve the goal of constructing this new, important building. 

Three years of analysis is more than enough.  Due diligence has clearly been exercised.  We must satisfy our current (and long overdue) need for a new municipal building.  It’s time to move ahead with Site 6 or Site 13. Let’s show that we’re not only a community of thinkers, but also a community of doers.