McLean County government has offered an olive branch in its response to a notice of default from the City of Bloomington and Town of Normal in a protracted dispute over shared sales tax money.
County administrator Cassy Taylor also rebutted the town’s allegations point by point in the letter dated Oct. 24, a few days ahead of the Oct. 27 deadline to respond to the notice.
The dispute centers on the accumulation of more than $21 million in the County Mental Health and Public Safety Fund [MHPSF]. That money is supposed to fund new public safety information system technology, behavioral health services in the jail and community, and bond debt incurred to pay for renovation and expansion of the McLean County jail.
One of the sticking points has been a city and town request to suspend collection of the sales tax money the city and town pass on to the county. The governments have talked about various lengths of time for that suspension. The county has said a suspension or hiatus amounts to a cut in the length of the agreement not a pause.
The offer
The letter from Taylor to Bloomington City Manager Jeff Jurgens and Normal City Manager Pam Reece reaffirms the value the county places on its partnerships and cooperation with the city and town.
Taylor offered an 18-month pause, not a cancellation on remitting shared sales tax revenue.
“With an additional 18 months included on the back end of the agreement. Any amendment would include a claw back provision requiring the City and the Town to remit all Pledged Revenues that would have accrued during the 18-month period of time absent the pause in the event payments do not resume as required,” wrote Taylor.
The county calls this a “reasonable compromise to address what the Town and the City perceive to be an excessive balance in the MHPSF despite information provided to the contrary.”
Taylor went on to assert the county is not in default of the 10-year-old intergovernmental agreement that still has about a decade left to run.
Interest
The city and town have said the county violated the agreement by not creating a separate fund and dedicating interest from short-term investment of the sales tax money. Taylor noted there is nothing in the agreement that deals with interest on the shared money or “Pledged Revenue” as the county terms it.
“As you are aware, a court will not read into an agreement terms that do not exist,” wrote Taylor.
She also objected to the city and town reference in the claim to the Public Funds Investment Act as support for the assertion of default. She said without citing a specific provision of the act the claim does not have sufficient grounds.
Taylor referenced a different statute that controls county handling of the money.
“Additional consideration of the statutory requirements of the Counties Code is warranted before declaring the County to be in default of the IGA for an asserted failure to credit the fund with interest earned,” said the letter
Jail staffing
The city and town have claimed the county should not be spending sales tax money on the salaries of some county staff. The county letter corrects the city and town’s reference to “probation officers” and said the shared revenue supports 10 jail correctional officer positions and two inmate assessment specialists.
The county said the assessment specialists have duties specific to performing mental health assessments and the National Institute of Corrections recommended having the correctional officers in an assessment of the jail “to address the increase in mental health needs within the jail.”
The county response said the intergovernmental agreement does not say expenses are to only cover behavioral health operations but expenses “related to expanded and renovated detention facility operations for behavioral health services.”
Unauthorized technology
The city and town have said some of the planned technology spending is not allowed under the agreement.
“… for systems primarily serving the County's internal operations (e.g., for the jail, courts, probation, state's attorney, and public defender) do not meet these criteria. Expenses for any system beyond the shared Caliber RMS violate the agreement,” said the city and town notice to the county.
The county disputed that, saying they will be used by city and town public safety agencies. The county letter said the city and town took part in the selection process and approved vendors and the inclusion of the Integrated Justice Information System [IJIS] in the Mental Health Action Plan from 2016 to 2022.
“To suggest now that the city and the Town did not agree to move forward with the IJIS project as recommended is disingenuous,” said the county.
The county also asserts the Pledged Revenue can be used for the electronic integrated case-management system anyway because it helps the town and city indirectly.
“The approved IJIS project fulfils this requirement by continuing data exchange across all public safety and law enforcement agencies which the County believes is necessary for our law enforcement partners,” said the county.
Proper process
The city and town have alleged the county violated the agreement to seek the advice of the McLean County Behavioral Health Coordinating Council [BHCC] during the budgeting process for the Pledged Revenue. The county said the allegation lacked specifics on how it supposedly failed that test but, in any case, there was no process violation because the county did consult the coordinating council during budgeting and at other times.
“When projects emerged after the MHAP was written that did not have an obvious tie to the MHAP, those items were brought before the BHCC for a vote,” wrote the county.
The county response closed with a call-me message to set up a meeting to talk more about the issues.
