Find Legal Information

SIXTH DIVISION
December 10, 2004

The Village of Elk Grove Village (Village), a home rulemunicipality, enacted an ordinance that imposed a fee on anyproperty owner who sought to disconnect property from theVillage. The City of Chicago, which had begun negotiations topurchase property in the Village as part of a program to expandO'Hare International Airport, sued for a judgment declaring theordinance unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Cityjudgment on the pleadings. We hold that the constitution doesnot permit an individual home rule unit to legislate on mattersof disconnection. Therefore we affirm the judgment of the trialcourt.

On July 23, 2002 the Village passed Ordinance No. 2901,entitled "An Ordinance Establishing a Disconnection Fee for AllOwners of Property Who Disconnect Said Property from the Villageor Remove Property from the General Real Estate Tax Rolls asAssessed by the County Assessor." The ordinance provides:

"WHEREAS, The cost to operate and maintain all ofthe Village property and the cost to provide all of theVillage's public services *** is $67,529,558; and

***

WHEREAS, *** it has been determined that 58.8% ofthe Village's revenue comes from theindustrial/commercial areas; 23.5% from the residentialproperty; *** and

WHEREAS, Based on the above-stated costs andrevenues and the stated acreage, it has been determinedthat the annual effect on the Village on a per acrebasis by the disconnection of property and territoryfrom the Village or otherwise by the removal ofproperty from the tax rolls is $10,049 per acre forindustrial/commercial property and $3,384 per acre forresidential property; and

WHEREAS, *** it is deemed reasonable to determinethat the annual adverse effect on the Village wouldextend for a minimum of forty (40) years ***.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED *** as follows:

A. Fee Established: There is hereby established aDisconnection Fee to offset the adverse effect over a40 year period for any property *** which disconnectsfrom the Village ***. The fee shall be equal to$401,960 per acre or portion thereof ofindustrial/commercial property which is removed fromthe Village's Tax Base by disconnection, tax exemptionor otherwise, and $135,360 per acre or portion thereoffor any residential property ***.

B. Notice: Any person, firm corporation or otherentity or owner of property who owns property in ElkGrove Village and who attempts to remove said propertyfrom the Village's Tax Base shall first notify theVillage Clerk of such removal, prior to the date theremoval becomes effective. ***

C. Statement of Required Fee/Time of Payment:Upon receipt of the Notice required herein, the VillageClerk in conjunction with the Department of Financeshall calculate the fee that is due and owing to theVillage, and provide *** a statement to the owner ***setting forth the amount of the fee. Payment shall bemade to the Village *** and must be received withinthirty (30) days from the date the statement isreceived.

D. Express Contract: An act of disconnection ***shall constitute an agreement to the terms herein ***.

E. Lien: The amount of fee *** if not paid priorthereto, shall, on the date the removal becomeseffective, be a lien upon the property beingdisconnected ***. The Village may foreclose this lienin the same manner *** as in the foreclosure of anyother lien ***." Village of Elk Grove Village, Ill.,Ordinance No. 2901 (eff. July 23, 2002).

The City sought to purchase commercial properties in theVillage to use in reconfiguring the runways at O'Hare. To addthe properties to the airport the City would need to disconnectthe properties from the Village. On July 24, 2002, the City suedfor a judgment declaring the ordinance void. The Villageadmitted in its answer that "the Ordinance is directed atproperty owners who disconnect property *** which would includethe City of Chicago and/or the State of Illinois if they oreither of them acquire property in Elk Grove Village inconnection with plans for expansion of O'Hare." Both partiesmoved for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial court held that home rule municipalities had nopower to legislate on matters of disconnection. Therefore, thecourt found "the Village exceeded its valid home-rule powers inenacting Ordinance No. 2901 *** [and] said ordinance *** isinvalid, unenforceable, and unconstitutional." The Village filedthis appeal.

Pending this appeal the General Assembly passed the O'HareModernization Act (Act) (Pub. Act 93-450, eff. August 6, 2003). The Act expressly authorizes the City to use quick takeprocedures to acquire property in the Village (Pub. Act 93-450,eff. August 6, 2003 (adding 735 ILCS 5/7-103.149)), and itprovides:

"It is the intent of the General Assembly *** thatlegal impediments to the completion of the [O'HareModernization Program (Program)] be eliminated.

*** [T]he regulation and supervision of the Cityof Chicago's implementation of the O'Hare ModernizationProgram is an exclusive State function that may not beexercised concurrently by any unit of localgovernment." Pub. Act 93-450, eff. August 6, 2003(adding 620 ILCS 65/5(b), 30).

We review de novo the decision to grant judgment on thepleadings. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v.City of Chicago, 317 Ill. App. 3d 569, 571 (2000). The IllinoisConstitution of 1970 establishes the powers of home rule units:

"Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unitmay exercise any power and perform any functionpertaining to its government and affairs ***.

*** The General Assembly may provide specificallyby law for the exclusive exercise by the State of anypower or function of a home rule unit ***." Ill.Const. 1970, art. VII,