Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy 17 35 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks board hears staff presentation on revisions to Policy 17-35 for county facilities and land use
Summary
Staff described proposed updates to Policy 17-35, the county policy governing use and rental of county facilities and land, including fee changes, a unified rate, added vending permits, benefits for foster families, and inclusion of a small room at Los Alamos Airport; board members asked clarifying questions but took no formal action.
Los Alamos County Parks and Recreation Board staff presented proposed revisions to Policy 17-35, the county policy that governs use and rental of county facilities and land, during a board meeting. Lynn Lindstrom, a parks and recreation staff member, walked the board through the draft updates and answered members’ questions.
Lindstrom told the board the policy had last undergone a comprehensive review in 2021 and that the current round of edits focused on regular maintenance, clarity and several benefit-focused changes. She said one published fee in attachment C was corrected after the agenda was posted (a $2.50 fee revised to $2.00). Lindstrom also said the update combines separate “personal” and “business” rates into a single rate for most users, adds a fee structure and permitting process for mobile food vending, and explicitly adds a small meeting room at Los Alamos Airport to the recreation appendix and fee schedule (the room is currently available free of charge, the staff presentation said).
The draft also lists benefits for foster families and children in CYFD custody, including free or discounted access to the aquatic center, ice rink and golf course. Lindstrom described other edits as administrative: expanded definitions, formatting and clarification of applicability.
Board members asked several clarifying questions about applicability to county contractors and priority of use. A board member asked whether “contractors” referenced in Section 3.B meant maintenance contractors or any organization holding a county contract; Lindstrom clarified that organizations operating under a negotiated county contract would follow the contract’s terms and could be treated differently than standard fee rules. She gave the historical-society contract as an example where admission or rental rights are set by contract rather than by Policy 17-35. The staff presentation also confirmed that county-hired contractors are listed as having priority of use under the policy where that is specified.
No formal vote was taken on the policy revisions at the meeting; Lindstrom fielded follow-up questions and asked that members email any remaining clarifications to staff. The board then moved on to separate agenda items.
At the start of the meeting the board approved minutes from its May 8 meeting by roll call vote. Member Nepper, Member Aldersa Bays, Member Marzen, Chair Watkins, Vice Chair Cowen, Member Zollinger and Member Schauffler were recorded as voting yes during the roll call.
The board’s staff said revised policy documents (including the corrected attachment page) were distributed to members and that additional review and coordination with other county departments had taken place prior to the presentation. No formal adoption or final action on Policy 17-35 occurred at this meeting; the item was presented for review and clarification.
