Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins rewrite of community building use policy amid liability and supervision concerns
Summary
Trustees reviewed a proposed update to the district’s community building use policy and fee schedule, discussed liability, insurance certificates and principals’ experience with outside users, and asked staff to compare the district policy to WSBA templates and gather principal input.
The Laramie County School District #2 board discussed a draft update to its community building use policy at the July 13 meeting, focusing on maintenance, liability and how the district should handle fees and supervision for outside users.
Chair opened the policy discussion and staff described the draft as an initial "beta" that incorporates pieces of the Wyoming School Boards Association template but requires additional language, particularly a paragraph required for youth clubs and clearer user‑liability provisions. "This policy is nowhere near ready for anything," staff told the board, noting the draft shows what a fee schedule could look like but needs refining.
Board members gave examples of community use — coach‑run camps, funerals and church groups — and debated whether events sponsored by the district (for example a coach‑run camp) should be charged the same as outside rentals. One member recommended principals be asked to inventory who has used facilities over recent years to identify recurring problems and inform policy language. Another suggested requiring certificates of insurance for outside users where appropriate.
Why it matters: the proposed changes would clarify when the district charges hourly fees, how it allocates costs (personnel, equipment, utilities), and how it addresses supervision and liability — decisions that affect community access and district maintenance responsibilities.
The board asked staff to compare the district’s current policy to the WSBA templates, collect principals’ feedback on historical facility use and problems, and return with a revised draft. The policy was not sent to first reading; the board treated the document as a discussion draft and assigned follow‑up work to staff.
