More than a year-and-a-half after a dispute over shared sales tax money began, the City of Bloomington, Town of Normal and McLean County have no resolution and no talks scheduled.
Bloomington City Manager Jeff Jurgens said even after a recent audit of the county fund that receives the money, the city and town still think the underlying issue is the county is getting too much sales tax money — more than the city and town thought they would ever pay.
"Because the laws changed, the town and the city are sending substantially more money to this fund," said Jurgens.
The change in the law is related to how internet sales tax is collected.
Jurgens said the audit shows that even after all known expenditures and a boost in spending on mental health programs, the Mental Health and Public Safety Fund [MHPSF] will end up with an estimated $20 million surplus.
Another of the several issues in play is whether the county should get to keep the interest from investment of unspent money in the MHPSF.
"Whether or not that's five or seven million dollars that has been collected in interest, that remains a big concern on the part of the city, and I would also say on the part of the town," said Jurgens.
The county has argued in the past that any investment income from the unspent funds must stay with the county general fund. Both sides have cited separate state statutes in support of their positions. The county has looked to the Illinois Counties Code. The city and town have emphasized the Public Funds Investment Act, as well as a 1991 opinion from the Attorney General.
In February, the McLean County State’s Attorney asked the Illinois Attorney General’s Office for clarification.
“It is the county’s hope is that all future interest income will be retained within the MHPSF, but there are legal considerations relating to the unique characteristics of the MHPSF, the intergovernmental relationship between the city, town and county, and the applicability of the alternative laws which we are trying to more clearly understand in order to ensure compliance,” said Don Rood, civil first assistant states attorney, in an August email to WGLT.
The intergovernmental agreement among the city, count and town does not address interest earned on the shared revenue.
Rood noted the Public Funds Investment Act applies to interest income from securities, and not other short-term investment instruments. Rood said the previous opinion from the attorneygeneral was about “interest earned through investments or deposits of moneys held in specific “special funds” created by statute.”
The city, town and county created the MHPSF, not state lawmakers.
The Attorney General’s Office typically does not provide timelines on when it might issue advisory opinions.
Other issues remain up for discussion as well. Those include which units of county government are eligible to have record management system software purchased with the shared revenue and whether the fund should pay for the salaries of some jail guards.
All parties to the dispute emphasized that despite the long-running disagreement over the shared sales tax money, they communicate and cooperate well on a host of other issues.
