Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Golf Course topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge county to rebid Los Alamos County Golf Course food‑service contract
Summary
Multiple residents during public comment urged Los Alamos County to re‑compete or rewrite the contract governing food services at the county golf course, raising complaints about service, pricing for tournaments and exclusive 'requirements' clauses in the current agreement.
During the public comment period at the Los Alamos County Council meeting, several residents urged councilors to rebid or renegotiate the county’s contract for food services at the public golf course, citing repeated incidents of poor service, high event pricing and restrictive contract terms.
What residents said: Donna Jones, who opened public comments on the subject, described the current contract as a “requirements contract” that guarantees business to the provider and offers little incentive to improve quality. She urged the county to remove the “requirements” clause and to add clear, measurable performance standards, including public satisfaction surveys.
Other speakers echoed those concerns. John Courtwright and Steven Mullins said the restaurant’s quality and customer service have declined for years; Mullins described instances in which tournament food service was inadequate and the provider closed service during events, leaving families and athletes without basic refreshments. Debbie Perkle, representing the Women’s Golf Association, compared catering rates at peer clubs and tournaments and said the county’s price — $30 per person for a lunch of pizza and salad — was higher than comparable events elsewhere.
Why it matters: Speakers argued the golf course is a county asset that should support tournaments and community events and that the food‑service vendor’s performance reflects on the county. Several speakers noted that county ownership of the building and kitchen equipment gives a contract vendor lower overhead than an independent restaurant, suggesting an opportunity to recruit higher‑quality providers if the county changes contract terms.
Council response and next steps: The item was raised as public comment only; no council motion or formal action on the golf course food‑service contract was recorded at the meeting. Councilors did not make immediate commitments on rebidding but heard the concerns and were asked to consider structural changes to the procurement approach.
Ending: Residents requested the county explore a contract structure with performance metrics and the possibility of rebidding when the contract option period arises.
