Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County directs staff to prepare 5/8‑cent gross receipts tax increase to shore up long‑range budget and fund capital priorities
Summary
After staff reported a lower‑than‑expected gross receipts tax baseline, council directed the manager to return with an ordinance to raise the county GRT by 5/8 of a cent, to be introduced Oct. 7 with a public hearing Oct. 28. Motion passed 6‑1.
Los Alamos County Council on Sept. 30 directed the county manager to prepare an ordinance to increase the county gross receipts tax (GRT) by five‑eighths of a cent. The motion, adopted 6‑1, follows staff presentations showing the county ended fiscal year 2025 with GRT receipts roughly $4 million below budgeted projections and that a baseline decline leaves a shortfall in the long‑range financial projection absent a revenue change.
Administrative Services Director Helen Periglio walked council through scenarios modeled against the county’s 10‑year financial projection. Staff presented three increment scenarios: a half‑cent increase (the minimum council had previously discussed), nine‑sixteenths, and five‑eighths. Under the county’s updated baseline — described as a roughly 14% decline versus prior assumptions — a half‑cent increment would leave the county with a small deficit beginning late in the 10‑year horizon; nine‑sixteenths restored modest positive reserves across the projection; five‑eighths produced the most cushion and flexibility for transfers and debt service.
Periglio told the council the GRT increase would support the county’s capacity to issue planned bonds, including a proposal to finance broadband and other capital projects; staff signaled bond sales should be synchronized with the GRT decision because ratings agencies evaluate revenue plans when assessing municipal debt. The county’s proposed 75‑million‑dollar bond program (broadband plus CIP) would be sold in series once projects are ready; staff proposed introducing a broadband bond ordinance Oct. 28 and targeting a mid‑February sale window if the council adopts a GRT increment.
Representative Christine Chandler (state legislature) attended and framed the local shortfall partly as the result of state tax changes that created exemptions for certain manufacturing activity; she noted that a large share of county GRT historically derives from Department of Energy‑related activity and that increasing GRT shifts some of the burden to county consumers and nonresident purchasers as well.
Council debate focused on tradeoffs between fiscal stability and cost to consumers. Supporters said a larger increment reduces the risk of mid‑cycle cuts, preserves debt capacity, and funds community priorities such as recreational facilities, transit, and housing programs. Opponents said the timing is difficult amid inflation and federal uncertainty and suggested a smaller step might be preferable. Councilor Haberman, Councilor Hammond, Councilor Reedy and others argued the modest per‑purchase impact is outweighed by the county’s need for a stable revenue base.
Councilor Hamman moved the 5/8‑cent direction; Councilor Reedy seconded. Roll call: Neil Clinton—yes; Reedy—yes; Haberman—yes; Hammond—yes; Herman—yes; Cole—yes; Rigger—no. The motion passed 6 to 1.
Staff will prepare a proposed ordinance for introduction Oct. 7, hold a public hearing Oct. 28, and (if adopted) the increment would take effect July 1, 2026. Periglio and finance staff said a single increment choice will be modeled for the county’s preliminary official statement for any upcoming bond sale.
