The Los Alamos County Council unanimously approved Resolution 25‑01 on Jan. 7, 2025, establishing minimum standards for providing reasonable public notice of meetings of the council, county boards, commissions and other public bodies appointed by the council. The council amended the draft to remove a sunsetted “nuisance code implementation review” task force and to change the March regular meeting date from March 4 to March 11 before adopting the resolution.

The resolution sets a floor for compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act; councilors and staff discussed how the rule interacts with publication practices and the county’s other notification tools. Council Chair Teresa Cole said the annual action is a routine procedural step and that staff had provided copies of the supporting report.

County Manager Ms. Laurent told the council the minimum notice requirement stems from the Open Public Meetings Act and that the resolution is intended to ensure the county meets that statutory standard. County Attorney Mr. Lepphardt advised that only the agenda is required by the Open Meetings Act and that, “If you don't include an item in [the published agenda], you can't address it,” meaning that items not published in accordance with the Act cannot lawfully be added and considered at the meeting.

Councilors debated the meeting calendar and potential conflicts with planned advocacy trips and regional conferences. Councilor Wrighty flagged a scheduled March 4 meeting that overlaps with the National Association of Counties federal legislative conference and suggested shifting the meeting one week; several councilors favored adjusting the date to avoid a likely attendance conflict. Councilor Reedy asked whether the resolution’s list should remove references to a task force that has already sunsetted; staff confirmed removal was appropriate. After discussion, a motion to adopt the resolution as amended—removing the nuisance‑code implementation review task force and changing the March 4 meeting to March 11—was made and seconded, and passed by roll call, 7‑0.

A member of the public, Charlie Trask, made public comment during the item, saying he did not receive adequate advance notice of meetings and urging the council to provide agenda notices by email and to distribute them more widely. “The citizens need other avenues to open the council actions up and let some sunshine in,” Trask said. Councilors and staff responded that the county’s official posting locations are the physical posting boxes outside the county building, but that the county also publishes agendas and a county newsletter; Ms. Laurent and staff noted the newsletter and website are used routinely and offered assistance to residents who need help signing up.

The council's action preserves staff discretion to publish more than the minimum required notice; councilors asked staff to consider practical contingencies — for example, what to do if the county website or Legistar service were temporarily unavailable — and reiterated intent to continue distributing information through the county newsletter and other channels.

The resolution passed on a 7‑0 roll call. The council directed staff to update the published calendar and the county’s posting to reflect the change to the March meeting date and the removal of the specific task‑force reference.