Published: September 18, 2008 08:33 am         

RLCD questioned on rate policies

MT. VERNON — Two members of the Rend Lake Conservancy District have called into question whether the district is violating state law on its establishment of rates.

RLCD Board members Jere Shaw and Jim Dolwick sent a memo to district manager Keith Thomason, requesting the issue be put on the agenda for Monday’s board meeting. Thomason, after consulting with district attorney Larry Sanders, told the members it would not be put on the open meeting agenda. However, Sanders stated the issue has been put on the closed session agenda as an item relating to possible litigation.

“This sounds like a question of the legality and questioning the legality of board actions,” Sanders said. “Since the issue has already been raised through a legal action from the Jefferson County Board a month ago, that makes it a possible item for legal action. ... When you hear from a county board, you take it seriously. It was not kept off the agenda. It’s up to the board to decide in closed session or open session. My advice is to advise during closed session, then they can decide whether to discuss it in open session. ... Then all seven board members, not just two, will discuss it, if it should be discussed further.”

At issue, according to Shaw and Dolwick, is whether the district is violating laws to establish rates sufficient to pay for operational costs of the activities and services provided by the district. In their communication with Thomason, the two quote the 2004 audit which was done by the Illinois Auditor General.

“The River Conservancy Districts Act ... authorizes the board of trustees of a conservancy district to operate a variety of facilities, but states that rates must be charged that will at least defray all fixed, maintenance and operating expenses,” the quote states.

“Although the district is not now using water revenues to pay for the cost of recreation or sewage, we continue to subsidize all our activities with the property tax,” Shaw and Dolwick wrote. “To use these tax monies for such purposes does not negate the requirements to establish rates [fees] sufficient to pay the costs of all operations. If rates aren’t sufficient, then ways must [be] found to cut expenditures. Correct us if we are wrong, but we believe operational costs include employee fringe benefits such as Social Security and IMRF. Operational costs also include salaries for central office personnel who allocate time to the various activities of the district.”

The questions raised by Shaw and Dolwick are a continuation of a move by the Jefferson County representatives on the board — Shaw, Dolwick and Jim Rippy — to continue reducing or eliminating property taxes for the district. In July, on the same day the district voted to maintain the current property tax levy, the Jefferson County Board passed a resolution asking the district to eliminate the levy.

“The Jefferson County Board petitions the Rend Lake Conservancy District to reduce and eliminate the property tax as a means of supporting any activity provided by the district,” the resolution states.

“For some time, we had been particularly concerned about recreation and sewage rates not being sufficient to cover all costs of the operations at Rend Lake as required by law,” Shaw wrote in a letter to the newspaper. “As a result of those insufficient rates, the district has relied on the property taxes to pay for some costs of our operations. With these concerns we were asking for the board to vote to approve a request for a legal opinion concerning the matter from the Illinois Attorney General.”

Shaw also takes exception to discussing the matter in closed session.

“To my consternation, the manager, with advice from our attorney, refused to place the item on the agenda. Instead, they wanted to discuss the issue in closed session, arguing that it should not be discussed in public because it might invite another lawsuit,” Shaw stated. “Well, ‘might’ is not enough for me. Anything we do ‘might’ be cause for a lawsuit. Moreover, operating with complete transparency is essential for public trust. Operating ‘behind closed doors’ is what led to the many abuses of the past. Beyond the specific issue requesting a legal opinion, is the refusal of management to place the item on the agenda. This action is very troublesome for me, and gives me pause to wonder who is controlling the district. If management controls the agenda, the logical extension is management controls the district.”

     

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.