BY JAMES WERNICKE
Los Alamos

Last week, Lisa Shin questioned if Local Economic Development Act (LEDA) assistance for the redevelopment of the former CB Fox building would compete directly with unsubsidized businesses. Before Council answers that question, it should examine what Los Alamos County’s LEDA program has accomplished.

History offers mixed results.

In 2017, the County provided a $325,000 loan, while the State contributed $125,000, to support UbiQD’s expansion. UbiQD met its employment obligations, and Council formally closed the agreement in 2023. The company subsequently grew enough to receive approval for another $800,000 County loan in January 2026.

In 2019, TNJLA was promised six downtown lots valued at $1.825 million to develop a Marriott hotel and conference center. Three years later, the developer still could not secure financing. The County negotiated an early termination in 2022 and actually paid TNJLA $17,000 to release it from the agreement. The County retained its land, but why was the agreement structured without performance milestones? Why was a developer that could not obtain financing paid to walk away?

In 2019, the State committed $4 million in LEDA assistance to Pebble Labs. It was administered through the County, of which $3 million was disbursed. The company failed to meet its employment obligations. The company received $2.25 million in public benefits, but was required to repay only $750,000.

After spending nearly a year pursuing a proposed $450,000 grant, SALA withdrew its LEDA application in 2024 because negotiations over collateral had become untenable. The County Manager maintained that security equal to the public contribution was legally required, while SALA disputed that interpretation. The disagreement was never brought before Council for a final public decision.

This year, Council unanimously approved an $868,000 interest-free loan for The Rock in White Rock. Its agreement requires $1.26 million in annual sales starting in 2027 and eight full-time-equivalent jobs (FTEs) by 2028, although earlier projections anticipated 17 jobs. The developer also sought $400,000 in MRA assistance. Despite questions about the feasibility of those targets and their impact on existing businesses, Council approved the loan without any independent validation of those projections.

Now the Council is considering a $6 million LEDA package for 1735 Central Investments, consisting of a $4 million grant and a $2 million, zero-interest loan. The County projects 25 FTEs and millions in tax revenue over ten years, but the relevant measure is not how much revenue the subsidized business generates. It is how much additional economic activity the subsidy produces for Los Alamos as a whole.

Shin points out that Los Alamos has an extremely constrained labor market. If those 25 positions are simply filled by employees leaving existing local businesses, or if customers simply move from one restaurant to a publicly subsidized competitor, what does the public actually gain?

LEDA may help with renovating buildings, but it does not address inadequate workforce housing, restrictive development processes, or operating costs that exceed customer demand.

And what about transparency?

Residents shouldn’t have to search years of Council packets and newspaper articles to reconstruct the County’s LEDA performance. The program’s entire history should be accessible in one place, including why applications were approved, denied, or withdrawn; how funds were committed, disbursed, and recovered; and promised versus actual outcomes.

Given overlapping political and professional relationships among some applicants and local officials,the public should not be expected to simply accept assurances of impartiality when the decisions are made privately by County staff. Transparent disclosures, consistent standards, and independent evaluations are essential to maintaining public confidence.

Economic development inevitably involves risk, but the County’s mixed record demonstrates why that risk demands greater scrutiny, not less. Without transparent decision-making, independent evaluation, and a clear accounting of results, what assurance do we have that these investments serve the community, including the interests of businesses that receive no subsidy but must compete against those that do?