Gahan vetoes New Albany-Floyd County parks deal; Parks, county officials disappointed, Daniel Suddeath (RollOver PopUp Picayune)
NEW ALBANY — Mayor Jeff Gahan announced Monday he vetoed an ordinance passed in April by the New Albany City Council that established a new interlocal agreement for the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department.
The measure narrowly passed the council with a 5-4 vote April 19, as the issue has been a point of contention between the city and county ...
New Albany had paid about $2 million more toward the parks system than the county over the past five years, though the existing agreement called for the two entities to split the funding equally based on population, which has been close to even in recent years.
After months of discussion, the Floyd County Council, Floyd County Commissioners and city council approved the new deal in April which called for equal funding mechanisms to be put in place by Oct. 1.
The new agreement would be void if either side failed to meet the funding requirements, but Gahan stated Monday he vetoed the ordinance because the county had failed to honor past parks deals.
“While I vetoed this proposed agreement, we are still currently operating under an agreement which requires equalized funding based on population,” Gahan said. “The city of New Albany will continue to honor our agreements and fully fund the parks department. It is time for the county to do the same for the betterment of all Floyd County.”
To read all about the "immediate reaction of disappointment from county and parks officials," duck the pop-up, dodge the roll-overs, and visit the newspaper's enduringly annoying web site.
1 comment:
In the comments section, Steve LaDuke touches on what seems an important point: The current contract calls for a reduction in services if one side doesn't honor the funding agreement.
If the county doesn't pay it's full share, the parks board should decrease or stop providing services to parks located outside city limits at a level commensurate with the county's contribution or lack thereof. That's the solution, not the problem. Had the parks board been doing that the whole time, this would likely be a very different conversation.
I don't think it out of line to suggest that any contributions the county does make should be spent on city-located parks only until the funding gap of the past several years is zeroed out.
Post a Comment