Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Leadership Plan 2026 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Alamos council approves 2026 Strategic Leadership Plan after extended debate over priorities and fiscal wording
Summary
The council approved the 2026 Strategic Leadership Plan 6-1 after lengthy discussion about adding a core vs. non-core services statement and replacing general 'fiscal sustainability' language with text about evaluating alternatives for expenditures and investments; Councilor Regor cast the lone no vote.
Los Alamos County Council voted 6-1 on Nov. 4 to adopt a revised 2026 Strategic Leadership Plan after extended edits and council debate over how the document should describe core services, fiscal stewardship and support for local businesses.
Councilor Reiting moved adoption of the plan “as amended” with the chair authorized to add language on core versus non-core services in the introduction; Councilor Hand seconded. The motion passed in a 6-1 roll call with Councilor Regor opposed.
Debate focused on two substantive points. Councilor Wrighty urged the council to add a clear statement about which services the county considers core and non-core so the public can better understand priorities and how budget choices map to services. Wrighty said, “the concept of core and non core services” was raised in prior sessions and should be reflected in the introduction so budget choices are transparent to the public.
Councilors also discussed replacing the phrase “maintain fiscal sustainability” with language that asks staff to present alternatives when large expenditures are proposed. Councilor Hammond suggested a formulation to clarify the council’s expectations: to “evaluate alternative methods and approaches for expenditures and investments, ensure transparency and comply with applicable budgetary and financial regulatory standards, and fiscal sustainability.” County Manager Lorentz said from an operations perspective staff did not object to that clarification and that it should be manageable in practice.
The economic-vitality section prompted additional back-and-forth about whether the plan should say the county will “support” or more strongly “promote” local businesses and whether to add explicit examples (for example, MRA/LITA funding tools). Some councilors worried that stronger promises could create public expectations beyond the county’s authority; others said residents expect more concrete language. After discussion the council left the original local-business sentence in place and directed staff to clarify implementation steps in future staff materials.
What happens next: staff will finalize the draft with the agreed edits (including insertion of core/non-core language in the introduction) and present implementation items tied to each objective in upcoming work plans and budget guidance. The council recorded its vote 6-1; Councilor Regor was the lone no vote.
