BY DENISE DERKACS
Candidate for Re-Election to County Council
Editor’s note: None of the statements in this column have been fact-checked by the Los Alamos Reporter, including those referring to County Council business and Court actions.
As public servants, County Councilors are expected to follow a principle-based approach to informed decision-making. During my term on Council and as Council Chair, this has involved gathering as much information about an issue as possible, proactively engaging with constituents with differing opinions, considering all the facts and anticipating possible consequences of a decision, and being open to all options and solutions.
Members of the opposing political party have recently misrepresented my public statements, my positions, and my voting record in letters, on the web, and on social media. Let me correct and clarify the record and provide background information supporting my decisions in the framework of County authorities and responsibilities.
Under State law, “New Mexico counties are granted the powers necessary and proper to provide for the safety; preserve the health; promote the prosperity; and improve the morals, order, comfort, and convenience of any county or its inhabitants.” NM Stat § 4-37-1.
Building Codes and Permits
Building codes and building permits are intended to provide for and preserve public safety and health. The codes and permitting requirements are more rigorous for commercial properties, which pose greater public risk, than those for residential properties. The County has issued some 265 commercial building permits, including multifamily units, and some 2,670 residential building permits since January 2021 when my term on Council began.
The County coordinates the permit application process through its Building Safety Division. The County issues the general building permit, and County inspectors are responsible for related inspections (e.g., foundation, flooring, framing, roofing, fire). The State issues permits for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work through its Construction Industries Department, and its inspectors address those specific State codes.
The Sirphey, LLC matter is still under litigation, so my comments are limited to publicly available information on the matter.
The County’s state-certified Building Official issued a Stop Work Order in November 2019 on the Sirphey leased space in the MariMac Shopping Center indicating “No permit for work – building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and fire.” A complete building permit application, with a required design professional stamp on the remodel plans and a required commercial remodel checklist, was never submitted to the County.
Sirphey, LLC appealed the Stop Work Order, and a County Board of Appeals was convened. The three-member Board (Priestley, Ryti, Shelton) conducted a ~28-hour multi-day hearing (which I listened to live) in June-July 2020. The Board voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the Stop Work Order. The Board openly discussed the reasons for their decision, but did not issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In a public hearing in September 2020 on Sirphey’s appeal to reconsider the decision of the Board of Appeals, County Council voted 4-0 (Izraelevitz, Martin, Robinson, Sheehey) to uphold the Board’s decision. Three Councilors (Maggiore, Ryti, Scott) recused themselves.
Sirphey, LLC filed an appeal in New Mexico District Court in January 2021 and a civil action in United States District Court in June 2022.
Note: I was not named as one of the 16 defendants in the State case or as one of the 24 defendants in the Federal case. I was not on County Council when the Stop Work Order was issued in 2019 or when the Board of Appeals hearing was conducted in 2020.
The Sirphey matter was remanded by the New Mexico District Court back to the Board of Appeals, which reconvened in January 2022 and issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In a public hearing in March 2022, County Council was tasked to consider motions to reconsider the written decision of the Board of Appeals and to reopen the Board of Appeals hearing. Four votes are required for a Council motion to pass; both motions failed. Three Councilors (Derkacs, Hand, Izraelevitz) voted to uphold the findings and conclusions of the Board of Appeals; one Councilor (Reagor) opposed. Three Councilors (Derkacs, Hand, Izraelevitz) voted not to reopen the Board of Appeals proceedings; one Councilor (Reagor) abstained. Two Councilors (Ryti, Scott) recused themselves; one Council position was vacant.
Note that a total of seven Councilors, in three separate hearings (Board of Appeals 2020, Council 2020, Council 2022) voted to uphold the Stop Work Order, and by extension, the County’s authority and responsibility to provide for and preserve public safety and health. Only one Councilor voted against.
The final order in the Sirphey, LLC case in New Mexico District Court was issued in March 2024. The County filed a notice of appeal on that final order in April 2024 in the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The state matter is currently pending. In the Sirphey, LLC case in United States District Court, many but not all of Sirphey’s claims were dismissed in January 2023. The federal case is currently in the discovery phase.
The County incurred initial legal costs of ~$200K (based on a review of invoices) and is now using its legal insurance through the NM Self-Insurers Fund, with a one-time deductible of $25K, to handle the Sirphey, LLC litigations.
Trinity Road Diet
A road diet is a traffic-calming measure that involves reducing the number of travel lanes to make space for turn lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The goal is to slow traffic, reduce accidents, and make roads safer and more accessible for all users.
Following a Road Safety Audit in 2016, the County was awarded Federal funding through the State Department of Transportation for safety improvements on Trinity Drive, NM 502, a state-owned highway.
The first portion of the road diet, from Diamond to Oppenheimer, was approved by Council by a 5-2 vote (Yes: Izraelevitz, Martin, Ryti, Sheehey, Scott; No: Maggiore, Robinson) in June 2020. Sometime prior to this reconfiguration from two lanes in both directions, a motorcyclist heading east on Trinity who was stopped in the left lane to make a left turn was struck from behind and killed.
Crash data indicate that the number of accidents on that segment of Trinity Drive has decreased. And traffic studies indicate that drive times have minimally increased by about 30 seconds, except of course, during road construction when additional traffic was redirected to Trinity.
The extension of the road diet from Oppenheimer to Knecht, was approved by Council by a 5-2 vote (Yes: Cull, Derkacs, Hand, Havemann, Lepsch; No: Reagor, Ryti) in September 2024. This section will be a hybrid road diet with two eastbound lanes to facilitate the movement of traffic out of town.
Note that during an emergency, the police could open the center turning lane to traffic, although all eastbound traffic ultimately must merge to travel down the main hill road out of town.
Nuisance Code
The County’s Nuisance Code underwent a 17-month substantive review and revision that began in July 2021 and concluded in November 2022. The process, led by an external consultant, included a technical review of nuisance codes in similar communities, a survey of public opinion, and receipt and consideration of extensive public comment on proposed drafts of the revised code.
In public opinion surveys conducted in 2021, and previously in 2018, some 28-30% of respondents indicated that code requirements were excessive or that enforcement should be decreased, while most respondents indicated that requirements or enforcement should be maintained (22-41%), or increased (8-18%), or did not know (11-43%).
During the review and revision process, some 227 public comments were received, considered, and addressed. A matrix of public comments, with their resolution, was compiled and published. The final draft of the code reflected this public input.
Council approved the revised code, that eliminated the controversial section on “weeds” and simplified other sections, by a 4-3 vote (Yes: Derkacs, Izraelevitz, Lepsch, Scott; No: Hand, Reagor, Ryti), in November 2022. Note that failure to approve the revised code would have kept the old code, including the “weeds” section, in place for an extended period.
Claims that nuisance code violations could negatively impact security clearances were subsequently dismissed by the NNSA Site Office Manager and Laboratory management.
Council established a Nuisance Code Implementation Review Task Force by a 7-0 vote (Yes: Cull, Derkacs, Hand, Havemann, Lepsch, Reagor, Ryti) in February 2023. The five-member task force was tasked to review implementation of the revised code and identify any areas for improvement. The task force reviewed one year of data and reports (from January 2023 to January 2024) including monthly code enforcement reports, courtesy letters, notices of violation, citations, and photographic evidence.
The task force did not find any significant issues in the revised code. Its recommendations to Council focused on enforcement and reporting: amending the Courtesy Notice, creating a Closure Letter, expanding quarterly reports to Council, and tracking patrol data. These recommendations have been implemented. Suggestions to clarify some definitions and to review the penalties for violations are under consideration.
Note that Council has not received complaints about the Nuisance Code or code enforcement since the revised code was implemented in January 2023.
Conclusion and Preview
In Part 1, I have addressed issues in the framework of public safety and health. In Part 2, I will address issues related to public prosperity. For further information, please contact me by email and/or visit my website and Facebook page.
Email: denise4countycouncil@gmail.com
Website: https://denise4countycouncil.com