Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Health Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health council tables community health action center recommendations after members raise cost and scope concerns
Summary
Los Alamos Health Council heard a working‑group plan for a co‑located Community Health Action Center — including clinic space, an industrial kitchen, food‑distribution storage and showers — but voted 6–1 to table the report so the group can pare its recommendations, clarify minimum space needs, remove named nonprofits and provide client projections for a September return.
Leslie Wallstrom moved and Heather Mook seconded a motion to table the working‑group report on a proposed Community Health Action Center and bring back a revised recommendation at the council’s September meeting; the motion passed 6–1.
The working group presented a multi‑tiered plan for a co‑located facility intended to implement short‑ and long‑term items from the county’s comprehensive health plan. Presenters described program components that include a shared reception and information dashboard, private intake spaces, small counseling rooms, conference and training space, computer kiosks, lockers for after‑hours pick‑ups, showers and laundry for unhoused clients, dedicated storage and a distribution area to support food distribution (described as capable of housing LA Cares or a similar group), and an industrial kitchen for community use and trainings. The presentation also proposed space for a crisis‑response team and an expanded clinic with additional exam rooms.
Council materials and presentation slides included capital‑planning figures. Presenters said the county has received about $950,000 to date for the project, budgeted $2,000,000 for the next fiscal year and identified $8,000,000 in a following year — which the presentation described as a roughly $10,000,000 allocation listed as a third priority in the county’s Integrated Capital Improvement Plan. (The presentation also inexplicably referenced a larger number in one slide; presenters and the working group relied on the ICIP line items described above when discussing next steps.)
Several council members praised the concept but called the package an idealized “Cadillac” version that may not be feasible for a county of roughly 20,000 residents. Members asked the working group to: define a minimum‑viable facility footprint, tie space requests to projected client counts and service outcomes, remove or genericize named nonprofit tenants in the draft recommendation, and provide clearer descriptions of who will handle design, procurement and long‑term operations once the council passes a recommendation.
“I’d like to make the motion that this report as it is currently written is tabled and rewritten to reflect some of the concerns that were brought up here and brought back to the Health Council,” Leslie Wallstrom said when she made the motion.
Speakers who urged caution noted ongoing county responsibilities for maintaining county‑owned buildings and asked how operations and staffing costs would be sustained. Some members argued the county could achieve service goals more efficiently by investing in people and programs rather than a large new facility. Opposing public comment urged the council to move the plan forward as a starting point, saying county staff and public‑works professionals will pare and adapt recommendations during subsequent scoping.
Next steps: the working group will revise the document to (a) remove specific nonprofit names and present generic occupant types, (b) specify minimum and enhanced scenarios with projected client counts and expected services, and (c) clarify which county departments would take ownership of design and procurement steps. The council scheduled the revised recommendation for potential action at its September meeting.
Related county context: presenters said the State’s SB3 program is expected to be a source of regional behavioral‑health funding, and the transcript records the working‑group lead saying the state has allocated $100,000,000 for regional behavioral‑health development; presenters said regional details are not yet available.
The motion to table was approved by the council; the working group and staff will circulate proposed revisions to council members before the September meeting.
