Tuesday, the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to send a notice of intent to withdraw from its inter-local agreement with the city to operate our parks.
A year’s notice is required under the agreement and supervisors went to great pains to point out that the notice of intent does not necessarily mean the county has reached a decision to end its joint agreement to run the parks.
In making their decision, supervisors say filing the intent was a means of bringing city and parks officials to the table to discuss how the parks are funded and operated and how best to serve the recreation needs of city and county residents.
We hope all parties will participate in these meetings openly and honestly in the pursuit of a common goal – the very best parks system that can be provided.
We recognize there are some serious obstacles.
First, there is a spirit of mistrust between city and county officials that, if not resolved, undermines any meaningful progress these meetings are designed to produce.
That attitude was reflected in the county’s claim that the notice of intent was necessary to bring city officials to the table. Yet when supervisors first announced their intentions to hire a consultant to review the parks, Columbus Mayor Robert Smith informed supervisors the city wanted to be a part of the discussion and offered to pay half of the consulting fee. Supervisors rejected that offer.
District 5 Supervisor Leroy Brooks, who seconded District 2 Supervisor Bill Brigham’s motion on the “notice of intent,” acknowledged that relations between county and city officials are strained. That’s hardly a secret, but Tuesday’s action is not likely to ease those tensions. The idea that the city must be forced to the table will be viewed as a threat by city officials, no doubt.
The second biggest obstacle is a matter of control over the parks.
It is no secret that the county is in a far better financial state than the city. In 2018, the county’s tax receipts will swell by $5 million per year as part of the former-Severstal property moves from fee-in-lieu to full taxes. Other industries will follow suit in the coming years. That means the county will soon be flush with cash. The city, meanwhile, will enjoy no such windfalls and has struggled to maintain its budget.
Given its financial position, supervisors see an opportunity to build a large multi-sports complex on county land west of the river, hoping to cash in on the lucrative business of travel team sports. It is unlikely that the city could match the funds required to fulfill its responsibilities as an equal partner in that project. Supervisors are not inclined to pay for the project while sharing control of it, which would likely be mandated under the current inter-local agreement.
That issue disappears should the county decide to make good on their intent to end that inter-local agreement.
But there are consequences that should not be ignored. How would such a split affect current facilities and programs? Would such a split mean a competition between two separate recreation departments? And, finally, in a county of roughly 60,000 residents can the existence of two parks systems be justified?
A split should be an absolute last resort: The far better solution would be resolving these issues in a way that benefits all of the county’s children regardless of where they live. We cannot support any plan that produces winners and losers in our recreation, especially when it comes to children.
So we plead with county, city and parks officials to understand the gravity of this issue. We remind them that they are, first and foremost, public servants doing the public’s work.
The decisions that emerge from these discussions have implications that will exist far into the future, long after the people who make these decisions — and their personality conflicts — are gone. It would be a sorry legacy to leave a parks system that was damaged simply because our leaders refused to cooperate.
That should be a sobering thought for all who gather to chart the future of our parks.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 43 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.