Jackson County Legislature holds contract for Parks Plus Rec services for developmentally disabled

The Jackson County Legislature on March 6 voted to hold a proposed contract that would have authorized partial funding for Parks Plus Rec Department special-population services provided by the Jackson County Board of Services for the developmentally disabled.

Legislator Megan L. Marshall, who introduced the measure, urged the legislature to adopt the contract, saying the questions raised in committee had been answered and that delaying the contract was preventing services from moving forward. "I don't understand exactly what the delay is in holding up this contract so Parks, Folks, Rec could provide these services to developmentally disabled," Marshall said. "My motion was to adopt… to do the right thing and adopt this legislation and move this forward."

The measure was described in the meeting as authorizing the county executive to execute a contract with the Jackson County Board of Services for the developmentally disabled to provide partial funding for various Parks Plus Rec special-population programs. The agenda item was presented by the Land Use Committee; the text of the proposed contract and the dollar amount were not specified on the meeting record.

A motion to adopt the contract was made and seconded on the floor. A separate motion to hold the item was also offered and called for a roll-call vote. The clerk recorded the final tally as 4 yes, 3 no and 2 absent on the motion to hold, which resulted in the item being held rather than adopted.

No additional conditions, amendments, funding totals or implementation timetable were stated on the record. Committee reports were referenced during the discussion; committee members indicated that some earlier questions had been answered in committee, but those clarifications were not read into the public record during the floor debate.

The matter remains pending in the legislature. The clerk and committee staff did not provide a dollar amount or an expected next step on the public record during the meeting; the contract's funding level and the committee response to Marshall's questions were described as having been discussed in committee but not restated in full before the body voted to hold.