BY LWV 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/4595?view_id=2&redirect=true

LWVLA Observer Corps Report: County Council Meeting Jan. 27, 2026

North Mesa Recreation Master Plan, Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA) Commission

The session was attended by Councilors Randall Ryti (Chair), Theresa Cull, Melanee Hand, Suzie Havemann, Ryn Herrmann, Beverly Neal-Clinton, and David Reagor. 

North Mesa Recreation Master Plan

Voting unanimously (7‒0), Council accepted the North Mesa Recreation Master Plan. 

Final Concept Design and Phasing Priorities

Karina Rodgers and Bob Oberdorfer of Sites Southwest emphasized that public involvement was integral to shaping the final conceptual master plan. The consultants created two design concepts based on community engagement sessions attended by more than 250 participants. These concepts were presented at an open house, where residents voted and shared feedback. Rodgers noted that more than 190 responses were collected and used to inform the final concept design. 

Oberdorfer said implementation of the plan was envisioned as being phased out over several years. He outlined the priorities, noting that they were largely based on public feedback, which indicated the highest priorities were the bike park and pump track skills area. 

• Phase 1 – Bike park and pump track skills area with associated infrastructure improvements; and rehabilitation of the perimeter walking path; 
• Phase 2 – Landscaping and habitat improvements in the open space; 
• Phase 3 – Sand volleyball and dog park improvements;
• Phase 4 – Community garden improvement or expansion; and
• Phase 5 – Multi-use pavilion for a wide range of uses, including covered basketball, volleyball, rollerblading; and a food truck plaza. 

The total project cost is estimated at $12.9 million. 

Public Input

The plan received strong support from 28 public speakers, with the roller derby (13 speakers) and mountain biking (8 speakers) user groups particularly well-represented. 

Equestrians raised concerns about the potential for conflicts between bikers and horse riders. One speaker warned that “the addition of a bike park on North Mesa will likely increase horse-bike interactions on Kwage Mesa and surrounding trail systems.”  She noted that while most people are courteous, such encounters can create fear and safety risks for both horses and riders. 

Lisa Reader and Stacy Buck recommended that the County’s first priority be relocating and mitigating the project’s potential negative impacts on existing uses. Reader said, “If you are going to put the bike park on the east side, [then] before a shovel is put in there, the trails and natural areas and the walking paths should go first.”

Reader also stressed the need to manage the public’s expectations, given the number and scale of recreational projects proposed for North Mesa. “Most members of the public would reasonably assume that, should this plan pass tonight, the shovels would be in the ground as soon as possible,” she said, adding that residents should understand the overall magnitude of recreational investments being proposed for this single area. Projected costs include $13M for the North Mesa Recreation Master Plan, $16M for the North Mesa Artificial Turf Study and Field Realignment, and $3M for the Brewer Arena Upgrade Project. Reader noted that additional costs have yet to be determined for the North Mesa Picnic Area Plan and Bayo Canyon Trailhead Project, and that no comprehensive master plan currently exists for the Equestrian Park. 

Reader questioned how the County will allocate money across these projects, and how priorities will ultimately be established. 

What’s Next?

Council unanimously approved the North Mesa Recreation Master Plan, emphasizing the importance of community input in future budget decisions. 

Parks Superintendent Wendy Parker stressed that there is currently no dedicated funding for the project and that implementation of its phases will depend on the annual budget process. Councilor Ryti added that the phasing can be adjusted based on community needs and Council decisions. 

Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA) Commission

Voting 5‒2 (Councilors Hand and Reagor in opposition), Council chose to maintain its role as the governing decision-making body for MRA funding and to take no further action on establishing a separate MRA Commission. 

Councilor Ryti said he requested this agenda item due to the lack of opportunity for action during the workshop session held two weeks earlier. He added that the discussion was also intended to clarify for the public the direction that Council was taking on the issue. 

Proposal for a Separate MRA Commission

Councilor Hand proposed establishing a new commission to review MRA projects and make recommendations to Council, similar to existing boards and commissions that report to Council. She said a new commission would increase transparency and citizen input while reducing the need for Council to make decisions on individual MRA projects. 

Councilor Reagor largely agreed with Councilor Hand, but suggested creating an advisory committee or economic incentives board instead of a formal commission. He said the group could provide business-focused guidance on MRA and LEDA projects and should include members with experience in banking, construction, retail, and other relevant fields. Reagor envisioned the committee as having authority to identify priority projects and help applicants meet the conditions required under state law. 

Councilor Reagor added that business professionals could offer Council practical, real-world advice on proposed initiatives. 

Council Discussion 

Most councilors felt that establishing a new commission could create several challenges. They cited the ongoing difficulty of recruiting members for existing boards and commissions, as well as the impracticality of asking qualified small business owners to commit to five-year terms given their demanding schedules. Several councilors questioned the value of creating a new commission, noting that decisions on whether to move forward with MRA projects ultimately rest with Council. 

Councilors also expressed concern that MRA applicants might not welcome being advised by other businesses on how to operate, and that a new commission would add another layer of bureaucracy to the application process. They noted that there are currently too few MRA applications to justify expanding the review process. 

Expressing exasperation, Councilor Neal-Clinton said Council already invests heavily in communication and public engagement through outreach, forums, conversations, and surveys. “If we’re not being transparent, I want to know what it looks like to someone else,” she said. “I don’t know what else we can do.” 

Councilor Havemann echoed those concerns, saying that good governance requires a balance between transparency and efficiency. “Part of good governance is transparency and public engagement, but part of good governance is also efficiency and effectiveness,” she said. She added that, while it is important to hear from business professionals and help applicants succeed, she did not believe adding another layer of bureaucracy would provide sufficient value. 

Public Comment

Local business owner Lisa Shin emphasized the need for greater openness and transparency in the MRA process to ensure meaningful public input. She expressed concern that the current MRA review committee is internal, being composed solely of County staff. 

Shin said transparency could be improved by opening review committee meetings to the public and recording all Zoom meetings between County staff and potential applicants. She also criticized the MRA application review process as overly rushed, saying it does not allow sufficient time for the public to review applications and provide meaningful feedback. 

Shin added that commissioners with business experience and a strong understanding of the local economy could add value by offering more effective guidance to applicants. 

Jeffrey Branch, representing Columbus Capital, voiced support for the current MRA process, noting that it has already taken the company several years and that Columbus Capital has invested more than $16 million in the community. He said the company has made efforts to be transparent, including holding multiple meetings with members of the business community and local residents, although meetings between the company and County staff are generally not public.

Branch said the project is at a critical stage and warned that changing course now could jeopardize its progress. He urged Council not to create a new commission, arguing that doing so would delay and complicate the MRA process and undermine the program’s goals.

Greg Gonzalez, also representing Columbus Capital, echoed Branch’s concerns about the complexity of the MRA process and the challenge of finding experts in all relevant areas. He said that Council, with its access to experts, is better positioned than an independent commission to oversee the MRA process.

Gonzalez added, “With respect to transparency and protecting the interests of the County in relation to the MRA, I think it goes without saying that there’s no entity that’s going to protect the transparency of the County and the County’s interest as vehemently as this County Council.”

Phil Gursky, representing the development project at Longview in White Rock, said the company plans to submit an MRA request for the project. He noted that the MRA process can be complex, but emphasized that the project must still comply with all standard land-use, development code, building permit, and other regulatory requirements and associated reviews. 

Gursky said MRA tools are primarily financial in nature, intended to improve project feasibility, and cannot replace other required approvals. He added that many key decisions—including funding, taxation, assessments, and bonding—must be made by Council rather than a commission. For that reason, he urged Council not to adopt a separate MRA commission at this time. 

To address concerns about transparency and public input, Gursky offered two suggestions. He recommended requiring an additional public meeting by the MRA applicant prior to the introduction of an ordinance to provide MRA funding for the proposed project, and suggested that the County post MRA applications on its public portal, similar to planning, zoning, and building permit applications, to ensure ongoing public access to relevant materials. 

Gursky concluded that these measures would provide more productive transparency and allow developers to work effectively with staff on technical, legal, accounting, and public engineering issues throughout the MRA process. 

What’s Next

Councilor Cull requested that staff encourage potential MRA applicants to present their proposals to Council at an open public meeting to allow for public comment. County Manager Anne Laurent agreed to make this a standard practice for incoming applicants.

For more information about activities and membership in the League of Women Voters in Los Alamos, go to https://my.lwv.org/new-mexico/los-alamos