Morgan County commissioners debate creating statutory park board, agree to continue discussion in administrative meeting

The Morgan County Board of Commissioners discussed whether to form a statutory park board and how to structure it, agreeing to continue the discussion at an administrative meeting and to gather additional research and public input.

The issue matters because state law sets specific membership and appointment rules for park boards and recent changes to Indiana Code could require the county to change how it governs parks if it chooses to create a separate board rather than continue operating parks as a county department.

Commissioners spent roughly an hour-and-a-half on the topic, examining statutory limits, membership composition, and the relationship between a park board and county employees. County Attorney Anne (county attorney) told the board that the most recent citation the staff found is Indiana Code 36-10-3-4.2(g), and that the commissioners — not the county council — have authority to create a park board by ordinance. The board discussed options for membership size (several commissioners said they favor a five-member board), whether members could be compensated under the newer law, and whether the park director and staff would remain county employees subject to county HR and labor rules.

Commissioner Brian Keier said he favored moving responsibility away from the commissioners and treating parks like other contracted entities such as Soil and Water — the county would budget funds and the board would operate within that budget. Several commissioners said they want a park board whose members share a similar vision for parks and who are less subject to political turnover. Commissioners also discussed who would be the “other elected official” named in statute (the statute calls for two appointments by the commissioners, two by the council and one by “another elected official”) and whether that person should be the county surveyor, circuit court clerk or another county-elected official.

County Attorney Anne cautioned that a statutory park board carries requirements and limits. She summarized that some statutes bar certain elected officials from serving on park boards and that, depending on how the ordinance is written, the county could specify which elected official appoints the fifth member. She also noted the practical effect: a park board would select the parks director, but the director and staff would remain county employees and subject to county HR and labor rules.

The board discussed public engagement and said it would solicit input and advertise any administrative meeting when it reconvenes the conversation. Commissioner Collier said the county should interview candidates and ensure the appointees “have a track record” of park involvement. The board also referenced examples in other counties, including Hendricks County, as models with varying approaches.

No ordinance was introduced or adopted. Instead, the commissioners agreed to continue the conversation in an administrative meeting to refine options, narrow potential appointing officials, and gather public input. A motion to table formal action and continue the discussion was made and seconded and carried on a 3-0 voice vote.

The board directed staff to research statutory language and draft an ordinance option for future public consideration, with plans to advertise an administrative meeting so the public can attend and comment.

The procedural outcome leaves open multiple paths: the county can continue to operate parks as a department under the commissioners, or it can pursue an ordinance to create a five-member statutory park board with membership and appointment rules set by county ordinance and state law.

Looking ahead, the commissioners said they will hold an administrative meeting for further discussion, then return to a public session to consider any ordinance or appointments, and to collect public input before any formal creation of a park board.