There was a special public Council meeting on August 13th which lasted about four hours. Following a presentation by staff outlining the three options discussed at the July 23rd meeting Wade Williams from Boyer had an opportunity to speak. He presented a fourth option for the council to consider. There are three components to Wade's plan. First the County and Boyer would continue to work together exclusively, without deadlines or discussions with other developers. Second there would be a new appraisal of the Trinity site land in light of the recent sale of the Mari-Mac property. Mari-Mac is the current location of the Smiths store here in town and this property was recently purchased by Simths. Third, the County and Boyer would talk jointly with perspective anchor tenants in order to finalize a deal.
I got the impression that Kroger/Smiths is the leading candidate for the anchor store and that Wade felt he was close to finalizing the deal with Smith's Market Place as anchor tenant on several occasions during the past two years. The biggest challenge to overcome is the fact that Kroger is no longer willing to pay a disproportionately high rent for the Trinity site property and subsidize the smaller rental stores on the site. I asked Wade about whether a County contribution for some of the utility and road work on the site would help us secure a Walmart supercenter. Wade indicated that it would help because Walmart is less flexible in negotiating terms. He also said that since he has been with Boyer for the past six years he has overseen two projects where Walmart was the anchor and he hasn't done any projects with Smiths. Prior to working for Boyer Wade was the senior vice president for Smiths and prior to that worked for seven years with Albertsons. He feels that we can have a Walmart but it will take longer to make a deal with Walmart happen.
Wade went on to say that he wasn't aware of Smiths intention to purchase the Mari-Mac center until the County told him and that Boyer itself was interested in purchasing Mari-Mac. He feels that since Smiths now owns the site it would make most sense to develop both Mari-Mac and Trinity Place together. He discussed the possibility of having a new Smiths Market Place on the Trinity site together with a new junior anchor store for Mari-Mac such as a Ross clothing store. He also mentioned linking the two properties so that the stores would complement each other and people would be able to walk safely across Trinity drive from one site to the next.
After Wade made his comments I discussed my position on the three options being considered by Council. I started by stating that I am against selling a portion of the Trinity site to the anchor directly and that I want the site to remain whole so that our public schools get the most amount of lease revenue possible. I went on to say that the County should not develop the site itself and spend another 20 million dollars to complete the project, rather a private developer should assume this cost.
I feel that if we get a big box store and nothing else than this would still be a good outcome and a big step forward for our county. There are many reasons why we need a big box store. Our citizens spend 30% of their personal income on retail off the hill. We currently have less than half the required amount of retail space for a community of our size. 50% of the total workforce in the county lives off the hill. People want to work here, but not live here. Since 1990 about 1500 people between the ages of 25 and 45 have left our community. Families can't meet their retail needs here in Los Alamos. The citizens want the big box store. We should move forward with it, rather than choosing one of the three options discussed which will lead to termination of negotiations with Boyer and with that we will lose the big box store.
I appreciate the public input about the Trinity site which the Council has received over the past few weeks. More than 140 emails were received as well as 80 written comments from various venues. I talked with folks for many hours at the Farmers Market and the County Fair. All of these things are good but, the most important input came more than 2 years ago when the citizens approved Ordinance 529 with a strong majority.
The people of this community and our young families, the silent majority, have told us that they want a big box store. They don't have time to come to council meetings or get engrossed in the fine details of county policies. Yet their opinion is as important as anyone else's. As Councilors are we going to listen to them or are we going to listen to those who would use the very real economic challenges facing the developer, the multitude of tasks remaining and the complexity of the situation as excuses to kill the project and kill the big box store?
With that I concluded my remarks. Council decided to postpone a decision about which option to take until some time late in September at a special public meeting. I will post the date of this meeting on this blog as soon as it is set. All the Councilors acknowledged that there is a strong desire for a big box store in the community. It is not clear to me however which option the Council will eventual choose. In my mind there is still a strong possibility that Council will choose a path that will lead to termination with Boyer. None of the three options discussed are good in terms of securing the big box store. We need to continue with Boyer without deadlines and discussions with other developers. I urge all those who would like to see a big box store in our county to continue to send email to the Council at countycouncil@lacnm.us . I totally appreciate the fact that people are tired of expressing their desire for more retail to the Council, but it is very important that our citizens continue to do so. The Council needs to hear from the citizens continuously on this issue or I fear that the big box store may be dead.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Council is considering other Options for the Trinity Site
Tonight there was a special Council meeting concerning the Trinity site project. Mr. Wade Williams from Boyer was present at the meeting. He made a short presentation and then answered questions from the Council. He started his comments by saying that there is no 30 day deadline and he doesn't understand how the Monitor came to that conclusion. He acknowledged that both Smiths and Walmart are interested in the Trinity site and discussions with these potential anchors are ongoing. According to Wade, Boyer believes that they have arrived at a financial model that would make the project work. This model would involve two things. First there would be a phased development of the site starting with the big box anchor store. Once the anchor store is open for business Boyer would gradually build the buildings for the other smaller retailers as market conditions allow. Second there would be some kind of County contribution to the project, possibly for road and utility work associated with the site. I got the impression that Boyer is very much interested in moving forward with the project despite the difficult economic conditions and that two potential anchors are also interested.
Following Wade's comments County staff presented three options for Council to consider for how we might proceed with the project. Several members of the public spoke and the Councilors took turns with their comments. Councilor Wismer indicated that it is time for us to consider other options for the site and offered the possibility of placing a new graduate college on the site. Councilor Wheeler expressed his disapproval of the current Boyer proposal which he likened to another Mari Mac type shopping center. There was a general sense by the other Councilors that the community was promised a lifestyle center with many different kinds of businesses including entertainment and Boyer's current proposal only gives us the big box store.
When it was my turn to speak I had much to say about the three options presented by the staff and I prepared some written comments which I read at the meeting. I have included my comments below.
Following Wade's comments County staff presented three options for Council to consider for how we might proceed with the project. Several members of the public spoke and the Councilors took turns with their comments. Councilor Wismer indicated that it is time for us to consider other options for the site and offered the possibility of placing a new graduate college on the site. Councilor Wheeler expressed his disapproval of the current Boyer proposal which he likened to another Mari Mac type shopping center. There was a general sense by the other Councilors that the community was promised a lifestyle center with many different kinds of businesses including entertainment and Boyer's current proposal only gives us the big box store.
When it was my turn to speak I had much to say about the three options presented by the staff and I prepared some written comments which I read at the meeting. I have included my comments below.
I have heard three options for how to proceed with this project. In my view all of these options will lead to the eventual termination of negotiations with Boyer and with that we will lose any chance of getting a new big box store in the near future. This is an unacceptable outcome for our community.
Option 1 involves talking with other developers and exploring other potential deals in the marketplace. We can’t negotiate in good faith with Boyer while at the same time talking with other developers. In order to reach a deal both the County and Boyer must be committed to each other. Option 1 would undermine that commitment, and throw away the principles and trust established over the course of more than two years of negotiations between the County and Boyer. To proceed with this option would not help make a deal, rather it would kill the deal.
Option 2 would have us set a firm deadline for Boyer to sign the deal and then would have negotiations terminated if a deal isn’t reached. I don’t agree with this option because it is too adversarial and puts unnecessary time constraints on both Boyer and the County. The sense of urgency in completing a deal with Boyer is artificial. Construction on the Trinity site can not begin until June 2010 at the earliest for several reasons. Buildings on the site are presently occupied by staff and the relocation process hasn’t begun. In addition an RFP for demolishing the buildings hasn’t been issued. The master ground lease between the County and Schools is not complete and when it is finished approval from the State Board of Finance will still be required. Surely with so much left to be done in addition to finalizing the deal with Boyer, we can continue for a least a few more months to negotiate with Boyer without a premature deadline.
Option 3 is termination of the negotiations with Boyer. This option would force the County to either develop the property itself or find another developer, both scenarios have considerable risks relative to our current position.
We have already committed 75 million dollars of public money for new facilities at the Airport Basin and demolishing the existing buildings at the Trinity site. If the County were to take on the role of developer we would have to spend another 20 million dollars or more to complete the project and there would be no guarantee that we could reach a deal with a big name retailer to anchor the site. Boyer was selected because they demonstrated that they can deliver these types of retailers, and have completed several retail projects in Utah with such retailers as Walmart, Borders and Wild Oats.
If we choose to go forward with a different developer we simply don’t know whether the County could secure a better deal or whether the new developer would be successful in securing a big box store. The economic conditions that Boyer faces, high rent costs and high construction costs, would also factor into the ability of any other developer to make a deal with the County. Is there any reason to think that we could reach a deal faster with another developer? I am not convinced. Furthermore I can not dismiss the possibility that we will enter into lengthy negotiations with another developer only to have those negotiations fail and we end up without a big box store.
There is a path forward, separate from the three options presented here tonight. This option is to have the County continue its negotiations with Boyer without deadlines and without discussions with other developers. I want to emphasize to the public that as I see it we can complete a deal with Boyer now and part of this deal could be the phased development of the site together with the use LEDA economic development funds from the County for some of the utility and road work associated with the site. I believe that the citizens want the Council to take this path, rather than have Council move away from Boyer and in so doing kill the big box store. We should not take a step backward we need to proceed forward. We should not constrain ourselves to artificial deadlines, and we shouldn’t allow others in the community to use the complexity of the situation, all the tasks that remain, and the very real economic challenges facing the developer as excuses to kill the project.
We’ve heard the excuses before such as the following examples: we could have a monopoly for groceries and medicine, all we may get is just a big box store and not the other kinds of businesses that are needed for a town lifestyle center, retail businesses are failing nationwide and it is time for us to consider using the site for other things such as a new municipal building or a new graduate college.
At present more than one potential anchor has expressed interest in the site and discussions are ongoing. There may or may not be a monopoly. Although a monopoly is undesirable, what is even more undesirable is not to have the kinds of retail goods that people want locally, and most undesirable is watching significant amounts of GRT revenue from retail flowing out of our community. Using the Trinity site for anything other than a big box store is a slap in the face to the majority who voted for Ordinance 529 and does nothing to help those families who now travel great distances to get the goods they need. We will not be successful in broadening our economy, attracting new businesses and young families to our community if we don’t create local retail options for the basic amenities. We need big name retailers in our community and we need a big box store.
Council has worked very hard for years to address the need for more retail and now we must be willing to make an additional effort to reach a deal with Boyer, rather than terminating the negotiations prematurely as all three of the options presented tonight would bring about. I support continuing our negotiations with Boyer only because I see no better way to get a big box store in the near future. I urge Council to reject the three options before it, and renew our commitment to reaching a deal with Boyer. We need to fulfill the promise made to the voters who spoke emphatically to the Council when they approved Ordinance 529 with the understanding that there would be a new retail development in Los Alamos with a big box store as its anchor. Are we as Council members going to listen to these voters or turn our backs on them? In my mind choosing any of the three options presented this evening would ignore the will of the voters and eventually kill the big box store.
This concludes the remarks that I made at tonight's meeting. There will be another Council meeting on the Trinity site project on August 13th at 7pm in Council chambers. At this time Council may decide on one of the three options presented tonight.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Boyer Negotiations are not Dead
We had a council meeting Tuesday night in White Rock and there were some interesting comments at the end of the meeting. I want to share these comments with the public because I don't know whether they will be covered in the Monitor or not.
Councilor Mike Wismer announced at the end of the meeting that council will have a public meeting on Trinity site on July 23rd at 7pm in council chambers in the community building. He started his statement by saying that no forward progress has been made with Boyer for the past 24 months and that the negotiations are currently stalled. He went on to say that the time has come to let the public know the details of what is going on. On July 23rd staff will present a report about what Boyer originally proposed to do and what progress has been made over the past two years. Then options will be presented to Council with regards to the future course of the project. The July 23rd meeting will be followed by a second meeting on or about August 17th to make a decision about the future course of action. The July 23rd date is set but the date in August is not finalized. I will post the date for the August meeting on this blog when it is finalized.
After Mike concluded his remarks I made a few comments of my own. First I disagreed with his characterization of the situation with Boyer and I said that the negotiations have not stalled. I went on to say that many people are concerned about the comments in the paper on Sunday with regards to the 30 day deadline and that as a public service I must let the public know that Boyer has not notified the County that negotiations will end in 30 days. I then asked the County staff to contact Boyer and invite a representative from Boyer to participate in the meeting on July 23rd. I said that I have several questions for Boyer and the public needs to know the answers from Boyer directly. Lastly I was critical of the fact that the public will only have 8 days of notice for the meeting on July 23rd and that it will be hard to notify all the interested people in this time frame because many people are away on vacation.
I think it is important for the public to know that Boyer has not notified the County that negotiations will end in thirty days. Contrary to how the situation was portrayed in the Monitor I believe that Boyer is committed to doing this project and the Monitor article is inaccurate. There are many in the community who want to put blame on Boyer and use this as justification to get another developer. In my view without Boyer there will be no big box store. Furthermore in my opinion negotiations with Boyer will not end unless Council decides to terminate them. This is a very real possibility, but I have no idea how Council will decide the issue.
I only know for certain my position and I want to reassure the public that I am committed to the big box store. Our community needs this kind of retail for a variety of reasons as I outlined in my editorial. We must not forget the majority of voters who approved Ordinance 529 with the understanding that we would finally get a big box store. I will not forget them, not for one second.
Please share this message with everyone in the community: Supporters of Ordinance 529 must come to the Council and say that they want to continue with Boyer and that we must have a big box store.
Councilor Mike Wismer announced at the end of the meeting that council will have a public meeting on Trinity site on July 23rd at 7pm in council chambers in the community building. He started his statement by saying that no forward progress has been made with Boyer for the past 24 months and that the negotiations are currently stalled. He went on to say that the time has come to let the public know the details of what is going on. On July 23rd staff will present a report about what Boyer originally proposed to do and what progress has been made over the past two years. Then options will be presented to Council with regards to the future course of the project. The July 23rd meeting will be followed by a second meeting on or about August 17th to make a decision about the future course of action. The July 23rd date is set but the date in August is not finalized. I will post the date for the August meeting on this blog when it is finalized.
After Mike concluded his remarks I made a few comments of my own. First I disagreed with his characterization of the situation with Boyer and I said that the negotiations have not stalled. I went on to say that many people are concerned about the comments in the paper on Sunday with regards to the 30 day deadline and that as a public service I must let the public know that Boyer has not notified the County that negotiations will end in 30 days. I then asked the County staff to contact Boyer and invite a representative from Boyer to participate in the meeting on July 23rd. I said that I have several questions for Boyer and the public needs to know the answers from Boyer directly. Lastly I was critical of the fact that the public will only have 8 days of notice for the meeting on July 23rd and that it will be hard to notify all the interested people in this time frame because many people are away on vacation.
I think it is important for the public to know that Boyer has not notified the County that negotiations will end in thirty days. Contrary to how the situation was portrayed in the Monitor I believe that Boyer is committed to doing this project and the Monitor article is inaccurate. There are many in the community who want to put blame on Boyer and use this as justification to get another developer. In my view without Boyer there will be no big box store. Furthermore in my opinion negotiations with Boyer will not end unless Council decides to terminate them. This is a very real possibility, but I have no idea how Council will decide the issue.
I only know for certain my position and I want to reassure the public that I am committed to the big box store. Our community needs this kind of retail for a variety of reasons as I outlined in my editorial. We must not forget the majority of voters who approved Ordinance 529 with the understanding that we would finally get a big box store. I will not forget them, not for one second.
Please share this message with everyone in the community: Supporters of Ordinance 529 must come to the Council and say that they want to continue with Boyer and that we must have a big box store.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Trinity Site Development
Welcome to my new blog which I created to help keep Los Alamos residents informed on important events in the County. My first entry is an editorial that I wrote about development of the Trinity site which appeared in the Los Alamos Monitor on Wednesday July 8th. I encourage Los Alamos County residents to express their opinions about this issue to the Council at the email address: countycouncil@lacnm.us .
Let’s Stay True to the Original Plan
When the voters approved the referendum on Ordinance 529 it was with the understanding that the Trinity site would be anchored with a big box retail store and that lease revenue from the site would go to our Schools with GRT revenue from the big box store going to the County. I strongly support this vision which is a true partnership and has benefits for both the County and Schools.
The Monitor’s February 22nd editorial suggested that it is time to look at other options and expressed the possibility of placing a new municipal building on the Trinity site. I couldn't disagree more with this point of view. Terminating negotiations with Boyer now and placing a new municipal building on the site would utterly destroy any chance of getting a big box retail store in our community, and would be an insult to the voters who sent a message to Council that they want more retail.
The need for more retail was clearly shown in a 2004 study by the POLICOM Corporation which indicated that on a per capita basis Los Alamos consumers spend about 11% of their personal income on retail within the County, whereas the rate in other communities in New Mexico is about 40%. This statistic is frightening in that it represents a huge leakage of retail dollars out of our community. The County shouldn’t just give away large amounts of GRT revenue from retail to other communities, yet that is exactly what we are doing. The only way to correct this situation is to increase retail opportunities with a big box store.
We are not going to attract new businesses to our community and broaden our economy if we do not provide retail for the basic amenities, the kind represented by a big box store. This type of retail is taken for granted in many other smaller communities such as Taos, Socorro, Espanola and Las Vegas, where on a per person basis retail spending is significantly higher than in Los Alamos County. These communities have a smaller population than Los Alamos and a considerably lower per capita income yet they all have big box stores. According to the POLICOM report the required amount of retail space to adequately meet community needs is about 40 square feet per person. Los Alamos County has less than half that amount. We fall far short in this one important aspect of quality of life, retail space. The Trinity site is arguably the best retail location in the County and using this location for a new municipal building isn’t going to provide the needed increase in retail space, rather it will stifle retail growth in our community for years to come.
Placing a new municipal building on the Trinity site will subvert the will of the voters who approved Ordinance 529 and as a community we should not do this. We should honor the voters who have spoken and not betray their trust. We have an obligation to make it easier for families who now travel great distances to purchase the goods they need because these goods are not available locally. We also have an obligation to ensure that the County receives income from future activities on the Trinity site. Once construction is complete the County would receive not even a single cent of GRT revenue from a municipal building on the site, but would still be obligated to make rent payments for the land. This is not a good deal for the County. Sixty six million dollars of public money is being spent for the new Airport Basin facilities which will house staff currently on the site. The task of relocating staff and demolishing the existing buildings will cost the County approximately $10 million. We have already committed far too much public money to abandon our original goal of expanding retail with a big box store.
It has taken longer than expected for the County and Schools to finalize their agreements for the Trinity site. Without a signed agreement between the County and Schools which governs the terms of the site master ground lease it is understandable that a retail developer would not want to commit to sublease the site from the County. Furthermore when the land transfers take place between the County and Schools and the master ground lease is signed approval from the State Board of Finance will still be required.
It is not in our best interests to terminate negotiations with Boyer at this time. Boyer was selected through a public process involving multiple competitors because of its proven track record in completing similar kinds of retail development projects in Utah with retailers including Walmart, Wild Oats, and Borders. Continuing to work with Boyer affords us the only realistic chance of getting a big box retail store on the Trinity site and developing the rest of the property in a cost effective manner.
The most important reason to have a big box retail store on the Trinity site is to provide an additional revenue source for our Schools. State money to our Schools for operating expenses has been reduced recently, irrespective of the proposed new funding formula, and as a result we have already witnessed cuts in sports programs and other activities, with the possibility of additional cuts in the future. Our Schools are in a tough position. The best thing we can do to help our Schools overcome this situation is to move forward with putting a big box retail store at the Trinity site.
The County needs to take three steps to enact the vision behind Ordinance 529. First, the County should minimize the amount of rent the Schools pay for their new facility at the Airport Basin as much as possible. Second, the County should commit to paying the full rent to the Schools regardless of whether there are new buildings on the Trinity site or not, and move forward with the master ground lease. In this way the Schools are assured a steady income no matter what the pace of development turns out to be. However, the County can only afford to do this if it gets future GRT revenue from the big box store. Third, the County must work with the developer to put a big box retail store on the site as soon as possible, making available economic development funds to the developer according to the terms of the LEDA bill recently amended by the State legislature.
The message from the referendum on Ordinance 529 is clear: Council, put a big box retail store on the Trinity site and make sure that our Schools get as much income as possible from the deal with no risk. Yet in our community there are persistent calls that we change course now and remove the big box retail store from our plan. Without further involvement by the supporters of Ordinance 529 in the ongoing debate we may very well end up with a new municipal building on the site instead of a big box store and this would not be a good outcome for our community.
Vincent Chiravalle
Los Alamos County Councilor
Let’s Stay True to the Original Plan
When the voters approved the referendum on Ordinance 529 it was with the understanding that the Trinity site would be anchored with a big box retail store and that lease revenue from the site would go to our Schools with GRT revenue from the big box store going to the County. I strongly support this vision which is a true partnership and has benefits for both the County and Schools.
The Monitor’s February 22nd editorial suggested that it is time to look at other options and expressed the possibility of placing a new municipal building on the Trinity site. I couldn't disagree more with this point of view. Terminating negotiations with Boyer now and placing a new municipal building on the site would utterly destroy any chance of getting a big box retail store in our community, and would be an insult to the voters who sent a message to Council that they want more retail.
The need for more retail was clearly shown in a 2004 study by the POLICOM Corporation which indicated that on a per capita basis Los Alamos consumers spend about 11% of their personal income on retail within the County, whereas the rate in other communities in New Mexico is about 40%. This statistic is frightening in that it represents a huge leakage of retail dollars out of our community. The County shouldn’t just give away large amounts of GRT revenue from retail to other communities, yet that is exactly what we are doing. The only way to correct this situation is to increase retail opportunities with a big box store.
We are not going to attract new businesses to our community and broaden our economy if we do not provide retail for the basic amenities, the kind represented by a big box store. This type of retail is taken for granted in many other smaller communities such as Taos, Socorro, Espanola and Las Vegas, where on a per person basis retail spending is significantly higher than in Los Alamos County. These communities have a smaller population than Los Alamos and a considerably lower per capita income yet they all have big box stores. According to the POLICOM report the required amount of retail space to adequately meet community needs is about 40 square feet per person. Los Alamos County has less than half that amount. We fall far short in this one important aspect of quality of life, retail space. The Trinity site is arguably the best retail location in the County and using this location for a new municipal building isn’t going to provide the needed increase in retail space, rather it will stifle retail growth in our community for years to come.
Placing a new municipal building on the Trinity site will subvert the will of the voters who approved Ordinance 529 and as a community we should not do this. We should honor the voters who have spoken and not betray their trust. We have an obligation to make it easier for families who now travel great distances to purchase the goods they need because these goods are not available locally. We also have an obligation to ensure that the County receives income from future activities on the Trinity site. Once construction is complete the County would receive not even a single cent of GRT revenue from a municipal building on the site, but would still be obligated to make rent payments for the land. This is not a good deal for the County. Sixty six million dollars of public money is being spent for the new Airport Basin facilities which will house staff currently on the site. The task of relocating staff and demolishing the existing buildings will cost the County approximately $10 million. We have already committed far too much public money to abandon our original goal of expanding retail with a big box store.
It has taken longer than expected for the County and Schools to finalize their agreements for the Trinity site. Without a signed agreement between the County and Schools which governs the terms of the site master ground lease it is understandable that a retail developer would not want to commit to sublease the site from the County. Furthermore when the land transfers take place between the County and Schools and the master ground lease is signed approval from the State Board of Finance will still be required.
It is not in our best interests to terminate negotiations with Boyer at this time. Boyer was selected through a public process involving multiple competitors because of its proven track record in completing similar kinds of retail development projects in Utah with retailers including Walmart, Wild Oats, and Borders. Continuing to work with Boyer affords us the only realistic chance of getting a big box retail store on the Trinity site and developing the rest of the property in a cost effective manner.
The most important reason to have a big box retail store on the Trinity site is to provide an additional revenue source for our Schools. State money to our Schools for operating expenses has been reduced recently, irrespective of the proposed new funding formula, and as a result we have already witnessed cuts in sports programs and other activities, with the possibility of additional cuts in the future. Our Schools are in a tough position. The best thing we can do to help our Schools overcome this situation is to move forward with putting a big box retail store at the Trinity site.
The County needs to take three steps to enact the vision behind Ordinance 529. First, the County should minimize the amount of rent the Schools pay for their new facility at the Airport Basin as much as possible. Second, the County should commit to paying the full rent to the Schools regardless of whether there are new buildings on the Trinity site or not, and move forward with the master ground lease. In this way the Schools are assured a steady income no matter what the pace of development turns out to be. However, the County can only afford to do this if it gets future GRT revenue from the big box store. Third, the County must work with the developer to put a big box retail store on the site as soon as possible, making available economic development funds to the developer according to the terms of the LEDA bill recently amended by the State legislature.
The message from the referendum on Ordinance 529 is clear: Council, put a big box retail store on the Trinity site and make sure that our Schools get as much income as possible from the deal with no risk. Yet in our community there are persistent calls that we change course now and remove the big box retail store from our plan. Without further involvement by the supporters of Ordinance 529 in the ongoing debate we may very well end up with a new municipal building on the site instead of a big box store and this would not be a good outcome for our community.
Vincent Chiravalle
Los Alamos County Councilor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)