BY LWV LOS ALAMOS OBSERVER CORPS
Editor’s note: Members of the League of Woman Voters of Los Alamos Observer Corps have been providing LWV members with reports on certain meetings in the County for many years. These reports have been included in the LWV’s monthly newsletter and now, at the invitation of the Los Alamos Reporter, will also be submitted to the Reporter for publication. The video of the full meeting may be seen at https://losalamos.granicus.com/player/clip/4466?view_id=2&redirect=true
Los Alamos County Health Council, Plastic Bag Research, County Fleet Conversion and Community-Wide EV Charging Plans
The session was attended by Councilors Theresa Cull (Chair), Melanee Hand, Suzie Havemann (left early), David Reagor, and Randall Ryti. Councilors Ryn Herrmann and Beverly Neal-Clinton were absent.
Los Alamos County Health Council
Jessica Strong, Social Services DivisionDirector, and Lisa Hampton, Chair of County Health Council, provided updates on the County Health Council’s 2025 work plan, which includes three main initiatives:
● address priority areas for community health outreach from the Comprehensive Health Plan,
● participate in discussions toward establishing a Community Health Action Center, and
● complete deliverables required for the NM Department of Health (DOH) work plan.
Community Health Outreach and Crisis Response
Strong reported that the Health Council is collaborating with the Los Alamos Community Foundation by participating in a suicide prevention training initiative. This collaboration involves expanding the Health Council’s efforts to include other community members, working closely with first responders such as the police, and supporting broader suicide prevention strategies being led by the Community Foundation.
The Health Council is also working to expand the availability of peer support options through Social Services and the courts.
Community Health Action Center
Hampton discussed progress towards the establishment of a Community Health Action Center. A dedicated working group defined the key attributes for a “one-stop shop” for health needs. The group’s recommendations were approved by the Health Council in September following public input.
The project has now been handed over to the County’s Project Management and Social Services. Next come tasks such as architectural renderings and site selection.
Hampton said that now that the Health Council has completed its part, the next steps depend on the County’s follow-through and funding availability.
Deliverables for the Department of Health (DOH) Work Plan
Strong said that the County Health Council submits a work plan to the state to receive funding from DOH. For that funding, the DOH makes sure that the work plan aligns with the initiatives that are already underway, and that those initiatives meet community needs.
Strong reported that the fiscal year 2026 budget for the DOH contract is $67,995, with an additional $40,000 possible for specific initiatives. The DOH work plan includes four initiatives, which overlap those in the Health Council’s 2025 Work Plan:
● conduct outreach and education in the community on relevant health-related topics;
● work with regional partners to expand access to mental health and substance use treatment options in response to Senate Bill 3, the Behavioral Health Reform and Investment Act (enacted during the 2025 Legislative Session);
● use closed-loop referral system (Unite Us) to improve coordination of services to individuals in need; and
● implement specific activities towards community suicide prevention and crisis response planning.
Expansion of Social Services
Noting the increased staffing of the Social Services Division, Councilor Ryti asked how the scope of its services has changed over the past few years.
Strong explained that the daily work of social services has changed from simply helping people with Medicaid applications and renewals, applying for SNAP benefits (food stamps) and other benefit programs, to now include helping people who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of imminent homelessness, helping get them connected to programs such as housing applications.
She added that Social Services staff are also increasingly being asked to help people with writing resumes and searching for jobs. She explained that “nearly all job searches are online and, for people that aren’t so technically savvy, navigating an online application is another thing that we are often helping with in the office.”
Social Services also helps get people connected to mental health resources, detox, and rehab facilities.
Strong reported that “one issue that we struggle with and don’t have a good answer for is transportation. If you need to get to the new detox center in Española, or you need to go to your annual interview with the income support division in Santa Fe, transportation remains a barrier.”
Impact of Federal Funding Cuts
Councilor Ryti asked about local impacts of federal funding cuts. Hampton noted that federal cuts have not affected the County’s Social Services Division’s budget but that all the clients that they’re seeing are suffering greatly. Strong said that they are monitoring what changes may be occurring to SNAP and Social Security applications, for example, during this shutdown.
Plastic Bag Research
Shannon Blair, Chair of the Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB), presented the findings of a study on the environmental impacts of plastic bags in New Mexico and Los Alamos. The study was conducted by the Plastic Bag Fee Working Group in response to the Council motion from January 16, 2025:
“Evaluate single-use plastic bags to include factors such as ability to recycle and other alternatives and cost to County to recycle and engagement to include local businesses and other interested parties, emphasizing the need to evaluate single-use plastic bags, including recyclability, cost, and consumer engagement.”
Environmental Impacts of Plastic Bags in New Mexico
Blair listed several factors to illustrate the significant and long-lasting environmental impacts of plastic bags:
● Extremely long decomposition time: Single-use plastic bags, which are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE), take about 1,000 years to degrade and break down into microplastics, which persist in the environment. In contrast, paper bags and organic cotton degrade in months.
● High usage rate: New Mexicans use an estimated 30 million single-use plastic bags annually.
● Pollution: Plastic bags are the most prevalent waste item in waterways, contributing to both water and terrestrial pollution.
● Harm to wildlife: Microplastics and whole bags threaten animals such as birds and deer, leading to illness and death when ingested.
● Greenhouse gas emissions: A single plastic bag produces about 2.6 kg CO2e (CO2 equivalent), 90% of which occurs during its production. This corresponds to the amount of CO2e produced by an average gas car driven 6.6 miles.
● Recycling challenges: Although technically recyclable, plastic bags are not accepted in curbside recycling, and 80–87% of bags are not recycled, often contaminating other recycling streams. On average, a single-use plastic bag is used for about 14 minutes, said Blair, “so you bag your groceries up, you drive home, you unload your groceries, and then they get thrown away or potentially recycled.”
Comparative Environmental Impact of Different Materials
Blair presented a slide comparing the environmental impact of various bag materials, including single-use plastic bags, paper bags, organic cotton, and others.
So which type of bag is better for the environment?
The data in Blair’s slide emphasized the complexity of this issue. Reusable bags, regardless of material, have a much higher carbon footprint than thin plastic bags and hence need to be reused many times to reduce their impact to that of a single-use bag. For example, a Danish study estimated that a brown paper bag would need to be reused nine times to reduce its impact to the equivalent of a single-use plastic bag.
The popular cotton tote bag poses an extreme example. Cotton has a large environmental footprint because it is a resource-intensive crop that requires lots of water and uses a substantial amount of pesticides and fertilizers, which introduce nitrates to land and waterways and results in the creation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. An organic cotton tote bag would need to be reused about 2,400 times to reduce its impact to that of a single-use bag.
Plastic Bag Policies in Other New Mexico Municipalities and Counties
Blair reported that, in New Mexico, five municipalities (Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Taos, Silver City, Carlsbad) as well as the counties of Bernalillo and Santa Fe have enacted some form of single-use plastic bag ordinance (either bans or fees). The policies vary by jurisdiction, often depending on local population, types of retail stores, and specific community needs.
These policies generally include bans or fees for single-use plastic bags, with a trend toward using any revenue generated for community education, waste reduction, or sustainability efforts.
● Santa Fe County has an outright ban on single-use plastics, Styrofoam, and straws at all businesses and restaurants, with penalties for non-compliance. There is no fee for paper bags.
● Santa Fe City implemented an ordinance in 2015 banning plastic bags and imposing a fee on paper bags, with significant exemptions (notably restaurants). The paper bag fee is 10 cents, with the proceeds split between the city (9 cents) and the retailer (one cent).
● Las Cruces adopted a similar ordinance in 2022, including many exemptions (restaurants, mom-and-pop stores, SNAP/EBT, nonprofits). Their 10-cent paper bag fee is split, with 5 cents each to the city and retailers/corporations. The ordinance generates about $190,000 annually.
Plastic Bag Use in Los Alamos
Blair discussed plastic bag use in Los Alamos, estimating that the County uses 3.25 million bags annually, or about 60,000 bags per week.
Both Smith’s stores in the County have bag collection systems, but the fate of the collected bags is uncertain. “They are sent to a warehouse, either in Phoenix, Las Vegas or Seattle,” said Blair, “and then at that point, it’s anyone’s guess if they actually get recycled and reused, or if they just get thrown away.”
To complicate matters, a store representative cited problems with people putting dirty bags and trash in the recycle drop offs, which defeats the purpose.
Cost of Plastic Bags to the County
Blair examined the cost of plastic bags to the County, focusing on recycling contamination.
The County’s recycling contamination rate was 17% during the most recent audit, corresponding to about 266 tons of contaminated waste annually. The County is charged $46 per ton for recycling contamination, amounting to approximately $12,000 per year. Although recycling contamination includes more than just plastic bags, bags are the largest source of contamination nationally.
Blair said that in the last State legislative session, House Bill 392, the Single Use Plastic Bag Act, proposed a statewide ban on plastic bags and a 10-cent fee per paper bag, with three cents going to the store, and the remainder going to the municipality or the county, specifically to be used for litter reduction and outreach. They estimated that it could save $3.8 million per year for recycling processors due to the damage that plastic bags have on recycling materials recovery facilities. Blair explained that “when you have bags, they get kind of stuck in all the wheels, and you have to stop, pull it out, so you’re losing revenue.”
Conclusions and Next Steps
Blair outlined potential options for Los Alamos: a ban on single-use plastic bags, a fee on paper bags, or a bag reuse program.
A 10-cent fee on paper bags could generate approximately $325,000 annually for the County, assuming 3.25 million bags are used per year. If one cent per bag goes to the business and nine cents to the County, the County’s share would be just under $300,000 per year.
Blair said the ESB would recommend that the County’s share be used to fund sustainability and waste reduction efforts, or to counteract contamination charges. She also emphasized the importance of continued education and outreach to residents and businesses.
Blair concluded her presentation with a request for further guidance from the Council on engaging with the community and businesses regarding potential plastic bag policies, if the Council decides to keep pursuing this issue.
Council Discussion
Councilor Ryti made several comments about the use of plastic bags, acknowledging the complexity of the issue. Referring to Blair’s slide about the environmental impacts of different kinds of bag materials, he suggested that such information would be useful to provide to the public so that people could decide for themselves which alternative is better or worse.
Councilor Ryti also questioned the effectiveness of education efforts, which have been underway in the County for ten years, commenting that there was no way to judge the impact without knowing how many bags were used at Smith’s stores prior to those efforts.
Councilor Havemann expressed strong support for a plastic bag ban or fee. She observed that, when one added up the population of all the municipalities in New Mexico that have a ban or a fee, that represents over half the state’s population. “People think the people in those communities are getting along just fine,” she said. “Same thing when you visit Colorado, same thing in California. Same thing if you’re in Spain or France, etc., if we were to go that route.”
Public Comment
Jody Benson spoke in support of a high enough bag fee or a ban, emphasizing the need for education and reduced plastic bag use. Local resident James Wernicke expressed his opposition to a ban but would support a fee to discourage excessive plastic bag use.
Council thanked Blair for her presentation but took no action.
County Fleet Conversion and Community Wide EV Charging Plans
An update on plans to transition the County’s fleet to zero-emission vehicles and to expand the public EV charging infrastructure was provided by Stantec project team members Josh Schacht, Analy Castillo, and Greg Wallingford.
The plans were initiatives of the County Council. The project, which was launched in March 2025, is being led by Stantec in collaboration with County staff, including County Fleet Manager Pete Mondragon, Mariano Valdez from the Department of Public Utilities, and Sustainability Manager Angelica Gurule.
Schacht introduced the two-part project, explaining that the 2025 Fleet Conversion Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from County fleet vehicles while the Community-Wide EV Charging Plan focuses on increasing public access to charging facilities.
Schacht said that one of the key drivers for the project is the New Mexico Clean Car Rule, which is being phased in over several years. It mandates that manufacturers deliver for sale an increasing number of low- and zero-emission cars and trucks. Starting with Model Year 2027, 43% of new light-duty vehicles delivered to the state must comply with the rule. Ending with Model Year 2032, the rule ensures that over 80% of new vehicles meet the standard.
“This project is largely about closing the gap between where the County is now and where it needs to be,” said Schacht. He estimates that there are currently 284 battery electric vehicles and 130 plug-in (hybrid) electric vehicles on the road in the County, which is equivalent to 30 EVs per 1000 people. Consequently, meeting the goals of the Clean Car Rule will require significant adoption of EVs in the County.
Fleet Conversion Plan
Castillo outlined the steps taken to assess the conversion for the County fleet to zero-emission vehicles:
● interview staff from various County departments to understand conditions of the fleet, their operations, their maintenance, and how and where the vehicles are used;
● understand how those operations translate to charging needs and the timing of when potential replacement electric vehicles would become available; and
● assess capital and operating costs, acknowledging that electric vehicles are more expensive and will require more infrastructure.
Castillo noted that a lot of zero-emission vehicles may be equivalent but that not all of them can meet requirements for the site-specific uses that the County fleet needs.
Castillo said that the conversion plan will include anticipated power capacities needed at the different sites.
The final plan will have a detailed year-by-year, vehicle ID by vehicle ID, replacement schedule designed to meet operational needs. It will take into account market availability and infrastructure availability. It will serve as the basis for predicting greenhouse gas emissions and estimating capital investment needs.
Community-wide EV Charging Plan: Suitable Locations for EV Chargers
Schacht introduced the community-wide EV charging plan with a description of the types of information considered to identify suitable locations for public EV chargers.
The analysis focused on three areas:
● Demand is determined by the level of EV adoption in the community. Large scale adoption is limited by what the community feels are barriers, most commonly range anxiety. Other barriers include high purchase costs, reliability concerns, and limited charging access at home or on errands.
● Suitability includes concerns such as land use, zoning, and utility infrastructure.
● The mapping process began with a public visioning session in May 2025 and a community survey that received over 500 responses. This feedback was used to map all the community’s preferred locations.
Schacht then described the determination of the most suitable locations:
● Where do people park their EVs? Because most people park them at home, the team used population density to see where home charging would be happening and understand the impact on the County’s electrical grid.
● Where do people drive their EVs? Using a tool called Replica, the team mapped the most common destinations for trips in EVs because where people are driving is where people are going to need to charge.
Community-wide EV Charging Plan: Optimal Locations for EV Chargers
Schacht presented four scenarios considered for optimizing public charging locations and for estimating the distribution and magnitude of power demands throughout the County:
● At-home charging use was forecasted based on population density.
● County-owned charging. Downtown areas were prioritized. The public suggested places such as libraries, visitor centers, recreational facilities, and parks as preferred locations.
● Shared level 2 charging. (Level 2 is the usual public charger, faster than home, but slower than the fast chargers at some traveler-friendly locations.) Multi-family housing and commercial areas were prioritized. Because this scenario considered only privately-owned land, Castillo suggested that the County might want to explore incentives or other mechanisms to encourage property owners to install shared level 2 chargers.
● Fast charging. EV traffic volumes and feeder capacities were weighted highly in this scenario. Public comments expressed the need for more fast chargers near grocery stores, dining, and shopping.
Schacht said that analysis of these results will not only inform the specific locations where chargers should be installed but will also reveal future energy needs and forecast electrical capacity needs at specific County feeders.
Next Steps
Schacht said that the final draft plan will be submitted for County staff review and then presented to the County Council, Board of Public Utilities, and Environmental Sustainability Board.
Gurule clarified that the scope of the study excludes EV charging infrastructures at Los Alamos Public Schools and LANL facilities.
Public Comment
During public comment, local developer Phil Gursky pointed out to Council the financial impacts of providing electric infrastructure for new subdivisions. Gursky said that developers building new, fully electric subdivisions—including EV chargers in every house—face much higher infrastructure requirements, which will have a noticeable impact on housing affordability. He estimated that the final sale price of a new home could rise by $15,000–$20,000.Gursky said that developers accept that fully electric housing is needed to meet the County’s climate action goals. However, he stressed the importance of understanding that it will have an impact on the County’s goals for affordable housing.