Published: November 11, 2009 12:19 am      

300 acres and a dam: Allegations say the conservancy district is not following the rules

The Muddy Fork Conservancy District is being criticized by a resident trying to keep her land from being taken by the district.

However, she also wants to join its board of directors.

Judith Lewis, 76, filed a lawsuit when the conservancy district attempted to seize more than 300 acres of her land, claiming eminent domain.

“They have harassed me for three years trying to eminent domain my property,” Lewis said. “It’s been heartbreaking for me.”

Eminent domain allows governmental bodies to take lands of private individuals if it is deemed to be for the public good. The government is required to pay fair value for the land being seized.

The land acquisition being sought is part of a plan to complete the last part of a municipal water supply structure, said John Mead, attorney for the conservancy district. That involves a damn the conservancy wants to built on a part of Lewis’ 300 acres, and would be used to regulate the municipal water supply as well as for recreational purposes, Mead said.

Lewis and her late husband bought the bulk of the property in Clark County in 1959 and she is fighting the purchase and development on her land for several reasons. She claims there is a former Indian settlement on her property that she wants to remain undisturbed, the building of a dam on a the portion of the property seized would ruin her adjacent land and she likes the property the way it is.

“She didn’t feel like the offer was in good faith,” said Michael Gillenwater, Lewis’ attorney.

Gillenwater said the district has offered Lewis $700,000 for the land.

“I just don’t think they’re treating me right ... [and] it’s worth a lot to me,” Lewis said of her property.

In hopes that she will avoid eminent domain seizure, Lewis filed a suit alleging the conservancy district has not been operating as it should under Indiana law.

The Muddy Fork Conservancy District is a special taxing unit set up in outlying areas of Clark, Floyd and Washington counties designed to help mitigate flooding issues. The district collects taxes from residents amounting to about $40,000 per year. In the most recent annual report, the conservancy has a cash balance of $834,121 at the start of 2008. It spent $28,568 in 2008 and had $852,546 at the end of that year.

Because the district is a public entity, it is required to hold public meetings, have a public office and allow for a certain level of transparency, all things Gillenwater claims it has failed to do.

“There has been absolutely no accountability,” he said.

The claims against the conservancy district include: that the board of directors has failed to maintain an office where all records are available for inspection during hours the office is open for business; the district has failed to hold regular meetings, at least every three months, but alleges the meetings are instead scheduled at the whim of the district’s attorney; the board is required to report the names of the people elected to the board of directors, but have failed to do so; and an annual report is required to be filed with the county clerk every year, which has not been done for 10 consecutive years, let alone in a timely manner, the complaint said.

Because the district doesn’t comply with the law, it shouldn’t get the privilege of public domain, Gillenwater said.

Mead counters by saying the claims against the board are unfounded. He said the meeting notices are always posted 48 hours in advance, as required by statute and all of the required reports have been filed with the Clark county auditor and clerk.

While the Clark county clerk was unable to locate the annual reports, Mead was able to provide copies of the past three years to The Evening News.

The newspaper also was able to obtain annual budget reports from the county auditor, including a 2010 budget that has yet to complete the approval process with the Department of Local Government Finance.

One claim that Gillenwater has made, and Mead has agreed with, is the board does not have a regular employee at the district’s office, which is located in the Borden museum.

However, something that seems very unlikely to be agreed to is Lewis’ motion to try and be placed on the conservancy’s board of directors. A vacancy exists on the board — because of the death of a former board member — which has yet to be filled.

“Lewis corresponded with the members of the board of directors ... requesting that she be appointed as an interim member of the board of directors, until the next annual meeting of this conservancy district can be held,” the motion says.

Lewis’ rationale for wanting to join the board is an attempt to try and get her voice heard.

“It’s not right for me not to have a say so on [my property],” she said.

But the appointment is not likely to be made this year.

“We’re not going to have another meeting before the end of the year, unless the judge orders us to,” Mead said.

Even if Lewis’ voice is heard, the conservancy district may not like what she has to say.

“I don’t think they’re doing me right. In fact, I know they’re not,” Lewis said. “They can’t wait for my demise. I’m sick of that bunch.”



MUDDY FORK CONSERVANCY BY THE NUMBERS



2007

• Certified budget — $849,445

• Certified levy — $34,832

• Certified rate — .94 percent

• Rainy-day fund — $200,000



2008

• Certified budget — $798,725

• Certified levy — $36,483

• Certified rate — .89 percent

• Rainy-day funds — $90,400



2009

• Certified budget — $914,482

• Certified levy — $43,607

• Certified rate — 1.02 percent



2010 (submitted but not yet approved by the state)

• Budget — $1,418,200

• Levy — $44,467