Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate whether to help incorporated towns; chair plans interlocal agreements
Summary
A prolonged exchange focused on whether the county should continue performing work for incorporated small towns without formal agreements; commissioners concluded the county will work on interlocal agreements to define responsibilities and avoid State Board of Accounts audit risk.
Commissioners spent a prolonged portion of the meeting debating whether the county should continue performing road repairs and providing materials for incorporated small towns without signed interlocal agreements.
Highway staff described recent examples: a Little York culvert repair for which the highway department initially paid a $4,904.88 invoice that the town later reimbursed, and smaller patching near Hardinsburg totaling about $970. Staff said performing work without interlocal agreements risks being cited by the State Board of Accounts for giving 'gifts' of county property or services to towns.
Some commissioners said the county's prior practice had been to treat towns as independent and rely on towns to hire contractors; others said staff had acted to keep roads open and protect safety during floods. Speakers argued two options: stop doing towns' work until an agreement is signed, or create an interlocal agreement that allows formal assistance under specified conditions.
The chair said the county will set up interlocal agreements with the small towns as a priority to 'get you off the hook' and to clarify what the county can and cannot do, and commissioners signaled agreement to pursue that path.
Next steps: staff and the county attorney will draft interlocal agreement language for the towns and present it to the board; until agreements are in place the county indicated it will revert to the prior approach to avoid audit exposure.
