By  KIRSTEN LASKEY
Los Alamos Daily Post
kirsten@ladailypost.com

Adopting a revised Chapter 18 of the Los Alamos County Code, which deals with nuisances, barely passed with the needed votes but ultimately it did 4-3 during Tuesday night’s council meeting.

Councilors David Reagor, Melanee Hand and Council Chair Randall Ryti opposed the adoption while Councilors David Izraelevitz, Sara Scott, Denise Derkacs and Keith Lepsch supported it.

The adoption may be passed but it might not be the last time it gets discussed on the dais. Ryti said he plans to bring Chapter 18 back up for discussion when the new council is sworn in.

The newly updated chapter was not celebrated – at least not by members of the public who spoke throughout the meeting. Aaron Walker, a White Rock resident who spear-headed a citizen’s petition that called for a halt on voting for the changed Chapter 18 and solicit more public feedback, said he was “livid” about the adoption. The dissatisfaction continued to be displayed when another public commenter Brandi Engeman accused Councilor Denise Derkacs of using a “threatening” tone in one of her comments. As a result, Engeman said she and others felt concerned. Derkacs indicated her intention was not to threaten and apologized.

In fact, all members of the public who spoke during the meeting were united in their opposition against the code.

Speaking as a private citizen, newly elected County Assessor George Chandler told the council, “It’s not ready”. The code needs more clarity, he added, more discussion is needed to define what exactly a nuisance is.

Many called for more public input on the code, including resident Joshua Muck and former Councilor Antonio Maggiore.

Muck explained there is too much in the revised code that is left to interpretation. He called for more specifics and challenged the County to maintain its own spaces before turning its attention to privately-owned property.

Maggiore urged council to listen and respond to the petitioners.

“All they are asking for, really, is to be listened to and be respected,” he said.

The council’s own response to the revised changes was a mixed bag.

Scott said two years of work, three community surveys, meetings and extensive feedback on the code was sufficient.

The changes, she added, are clearer, easier to understand, more lenient and are applied in a more consistent way. As far as achieving a balance to all the divergent opinions on the code, Scott said that would be hard to do, adding that she hadn’t heard from the public about a process or a timeline on how to reach a balance.

Derkacs said there will never be a complete agreement, but she called the revisions to the chapter a “compromise”.

“I will support this compromise draft … it is not necessarily what I want, but it is a comprise,” she said, adding if the updates aren’t approved then the current code remains in effect and will be enforced.

Izraelevitz pointed out that there “is no perfect code”.

“People don’t agree,” he explained. “Also, because standards change … community’s standards have changed over time and what is acceptable changes … there is no perfect.”

However, something should be put into place to see how it works, Izraelvitz said.  Right now, everything is just on paper and is theoretical. It needs to be enacted so that lessons can be learned, he said.

Lepsch did not offer a reason during the meeting on why he decided to support the revised Chapter.

Ryti said he wouldn’t support the revisions because there were still things that needed to be amended.

Reagor agreed, pointing out that there are flaws that “are really difficult to get around.”

Hand also commented that she could not support the revised chapter due to the feedback she heard.

“I wish I could celebrate the adoption of this code tonight … however, based on all the input I cannot support this motion tonight,” she said.

In other business, Council:

• Passed 4-3 with Ryti, Hand, Reagor and Lepsch in support and Derkacs, Izraelevitz and Scott in opposition to take several actions in response to the citizen’s petition to halt the adoption of the revised Chapter 18. These include: to review all the actions recommended by the Citizens Development Advisory Board (CDAB) during the public hearing, develop a schedule for obtaining additional public input and the schedule for adoption of the ordinance and take no action to dissolve CDAB until a revised chapter is in effect and has been evaluated for impacts on the community for a period of no less than one year. However, since the Chapter 18 updates were adopted after this motion passed, Ryti told the Daily Post Wednesday that at this time no further public feedback is being solicited;
• Presented a proclamation recognizing the County election officials, poll-workers and volunteers; and
• Introduced an ordinance to remove CDAB as a permanent County board.