OBSERVER CORPS REPORT – COUNTY COUNCIL – AUGUST 4, 2026
The video of the full meeting may be seen at: https://losalamos.granicus.com/player/clip/4856?view_id=2&redirect=true
Quarterly Climate Action Plan Implementation Update, Bond for Workforce Housing, Plastic Bag Ban
This session was attended by Chair Randall Ryti, Vice Chair Ryn Herrmann, and Councilors Theresa Cull, David Reagor, Suzie Havemann, Beverly Neal-Clinton. Councilor Melanee Hand was absent.
Quarterly Climate Action Plan Implementation Update
Angelica Gurule, LAC Sustainability Manager, presented the update on the Climate Action Plan (CAP). She reviewed Council’s goal to
• Achieve carbon neutrality by 2050
• Become a carbon-neutral electric provider by 2040
• Phase out natural gas for County operations by 2050 and for the community by 2070.
Gurule summarized the progress achieved so far, which includes 13 climate actions. Completed actions include completing the Fleet Conversion Plan and the Community-Wide EV Charging Plan. The County has transitioned to five EVs and one hybrid vehicle in FY 2026 and plans transition to four more in FY 2027.
Ongoing actions include expanding community partnerships and encouraging community energy efficiency and electrification retrofits through education. They have also conducted recycling and composting outreach and education programs such as the collaboration with PEEC on a rain barrel workshop using old trash roll carts.
Construction is underway at Foxtail Flats, which has an estimated completion date of June 2027. When completed, the solar array and battery should have the capacity to supply over half of the electrical needs of Los Alamos County, LANL, Sandia Laboratory, and Kirtland Airforce Base with clean, low-cost energy.
Fast chargers for electric vehicles are being installed at Mesa Public Library. Gurule announced that the chargers in use at the Municipal Building since December are operating at a loss, but she hopes that will change as usage increases. Also, the County is evaluating commercial battery-powered lawn equipment (blowers, weed eaters, mowers, chainsaws and trimmers) that initially cost $300-$500. The savings on annual operating and maintenance should result in a payback period of less than two years. However, the batteries do not last long enough for day-long use.
Gurule also said that the County is working on other plans, including establishing a food composting service and offering residential energy audits.
Green Building Standards
Community Development Director Eli Isaacson presented the update on the implementation of the part of the CAP concerned with buildings. The CAP proposes that the County adopt a green building performance standard, referred to as a “Reach Code,” for new residential and commercial construction in order to reduce fossil fuel use and improve energy performance in new buildings. Isaacson argued that a Reach Code would
(1) increase hard construction costs, resulting in increased home prices and rents;
(2) disproportionately burden smaller projects that couldn’t absorb added costs for only marginal gains in efficiency;
(3) confuse contractors;
(4) be inconsistently enforced; and
(5) only apply to new construction while existing buildings, which are the largest source of building energy consumption, are unaffected.
He said that the performance gains above the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which Council has adopted, are minimal and diminish as the IECC is updated every few years. Instead of adopting a new code, he recommends educating the community, contractors, and applicants with a plain-language guide because “compliance is driven by understanding rather than just plan check.” He recommends incentives rather than mandates that would add additional costs and complexity.
Isaacson also supports promoting green stormwater infrastructure and low-impact development, expanding mixed-use, transit-oriented development policies, and a local food system.
Council Discussion of Updates
The Council discussion primarily emphasized the need to balance environmental objectives with costs, community concerns, practical implementation, and the long-term consequences of doing nothing.
Reagor questioned the feasibility and cost of long-term energy storage for solar energy from Foxtail Flats. He wondered about a blended-resource approach rather than relying exclusively on batteries and suggested geothermal energy. Philo Shelton, Department of Public Utilities Manager, recognized there is currently nothing readily available to provide all of the long-term battery storage that may be needed. He said that pilot geothermal wells have been drilled in Beaver, Utah, although the cost would depend on the technology selected. The larger point was that the County should consider a range of energy resources as it works toward long-term energy goals.
Neal-Clinton questioned when the EV program would become financially positive. Chris Luchini noted that he pays approximately 23 cents per hour for charging compared with about 11 cents at home. He suggested that the County should locate chargers where people already spend time so that charging becomes more convenient. Lower costs could also encourage greater use.
Havemann emphasized the importance of the long-term plan because the costs of doing nothing are borne by society as a whole. She stressed patience, behavioral change, and steady progress. She emphasized the importance of a long-term composting procurement, potentially anchored by a seven-year contract, while allowing the County to learn what works and what does not. She also pointed out that the trip-reduction program was currently at zero percent.
Ryti focused on the societal cost of failing to make energy-efficient investments. He suggested the County might help facilitate financing when improvements produce long-term savings, particularly when lifecycle benefits could justify the initial expense. County Manager Anne Laurent noted that energy-efficient upgrades may be available to income-qualified residents, but the larger challenge remains the cost of construction. The discussion also touched on the possibility of turning commuters into residents as another way of reducing emissions. The question of local authority to restrict natural gas hookups was raised as well, but County Attorney Alvin Leaphart expressed uncertainty about the legal limits of local government authority and the possibility that the issue could ultimately require resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Public Hearing
The Council approved the issuance of $230M worth of Workforce Housing Revenue Bonds for the construction of 380 workforce housing units in a higher-density residential neighborhood adjacent to downtown (Coyote Mesa, also known as the A-8-A parcel). The vote was unanimous 6-0 with Councilor Hand absent.
Vote on a Resolution to Ban the Single-Use Plastic Shopping Bag
The most extensive discussion during the meeting concerned a proposed plastic carry-out bag ban. David Hampton, speaking for the Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB), reported on the creation of the ordinance and the public meeting held by the ESB. Comments received before the meeting revealed substantial opposition. The ESD felt that the potential benefit appeared too small to justify the division it was causing in the community. For that reason, they voted unanimously not to recommend the ban to the Council at this time.
Some on the board felt that the issue could become a distraction from completing the broader Climate Action Plan. Some felt a mandate was not appropriate. Others wanted to support a ban but felt that they had to represent the community, which was strongly opposed to the ban.
Opponents of the ban emphasized that plastic bags represent only a small portion of overall plastic pollution and raised concerns about household budgets and business costs. Ryti had believed the issue should be brought forward again to complete the discussion, suggesting that residents wanted to reduce plastic bag use but did not necessarily want a ban. Hampton said the ESB supported doing more to reduce the use of plastic in the County. Joyce Anderson noted that the Council had unanimously declined a bag ban in 2015 and that this was the third time the issue had been raised. She emphasized that there is no perfect bag solution and that every choice involves tradeoffs.
Sue Barns raised concerns about the life-cycle impacts of alternatives to single-use bags, arguing that shifting the community toward another type of bag could potentially create additional environmental harm. Lisa Shin focused on the cost of living, particularly for middle-class residents, people on fixed incomes, and local businesses. She argued that a ban could increase checkout costs and potentially encourage more online shopping, which could negatively affect the local economy.
Linda Daly commented that much has changed since the issue was first considered and that many communities are now moving toward bag bans. She pointed to the large number of bags used each year and argued that plastic bags are difficult and costly to recycle and can break down into smaller plastic particles. For Daly, reducing their use was a relatively simple action that demonstrated the County’s commitment to environmental sustainability.
Havemann ultimately moved, seconded by Herrmann, that the Council direct the County Manager to use the ordinance as amended, and introduce it on August 25th. The proposed amendments would replace the broader reference to “single-use” with plastic carry-out bags, allow store owners and managers to decide whether to charge a fee, establish penalties for violations, and change a compliance period from a day to a week to give businesses additional time. Reagor argued that a law was not necessary for every environmental issue and that education and persuasion could be more effective. Cull responded that consumers were effectively subsidizing other people’s use of bags and noted that Smith’s was going through approximately 40,000 bags per week. Cull also argued that education had made some impact but had not eliminated the use of bags.
Ryti raised questions about whether bioplastics would be permitted and expressed concern that the proposal could create ill will that would undermine other sustainability initiatives. Havemann clarified that the proposal concerned carry-out bags and would not prevent stores from providing plastic bags for vegetables or other purposes.
The motion failed 3 to 3 with Havemann, Cull, Herrmann voting for; Ryti, Neal-Clinton, Reagor opposed.