Find Legal Information

FACTS

The subdivisions known as (1) Riverside Country Estates; (2)Riverside Country Estates First Addition; (3) Riverside CountryEstates Second Addition; and (4) Woodhaven are located in anunincorporated area of Kankakee County. When the wells providingwater to these neighborhoods became contaminated and redrillingfailed, the property owners sought to have a water systemextended to their subdivisions in order to obtain water servicesfrom the Consumers' Illinois Water Company.

The property owners petitioned the Committee pursuant tosection 5--32004 of the Local Improvements Act to originate alocal improvement for the construction of the water mains. See55 ILCS 5/5--32004 (West 1996). Upon the recommendation of theCommittee, the county board passed a resolution authorizing theconstruction and installation of a water system. Upon completionof the improvement, the County filed in the circuit court acertificate of final cost and completion which stated that thecommittee costs and expenses amounted to $30,256.57 (which was 6%of the total assessment). In response, McClure filed anobjection arguing that the County was not entitled to bereimbursed for costs arising from the use of county employees toprepare the special assessment. The circuit court ruled in favorof McClure noting that expenses for county employee salaries foractivities associated with making the special assessment were notrecoverable under the provisions of section 5--32059 of the LocalImprovements Act. See 55 ILCS 5/5--32059 (West 1996). TheCounty appeals from this order.

ANALYSIS

Statutory construction is a question of law to be determinedby this court de novo. Advincula v. United Blood Services, 176Ill. 2d 1, 12, 678 N.E.2d 1009, 1015 (1996). The cardinal ruleof statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to thetrue intent and meaning of the legislature. Solich v. George &Anna Portes Cancer Prevention Center of Chicago, Inc., 158 Ill.2d 76, 81, 630 N.E.2d 820, 822 (1994). Courts should firstattempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the plainlanguage of the statute. Solich, 158 Ill. 2d at 81, 630 N.E.2dat 822. Section 5--32059 of the Local Improvements Act providesas follows:

"Costs and expenses. The costs and expenses ofmaintaining the Committee for paying salaries of themembers of the Committee and the expense of making,levying and collecting the special assessment, and alsothe entire cost and expense attending the making andreturn of the assessment roll, the legal notices andcourt costs and the costs of printing of the bondsshall be provided for in the ordinance for theprescribed assessment by adding to the total assessmenta certain sum not to exceed 6% of the amount of thisassessment, which shall be applied by the Committeetoward the payment of the specified and other costs ofmaking, levying and collecting this assessment." 55ILCS 5/5--32059 (West 1996).

The County asserts that since section 5--32059 provides for therecovery of "the expense of making, levying and collecting thespecial assessment," it should be compensated for countyemployees' time which was necessarily used to complete thespecial assessment.

In section 5--32059 of the Local Improvements Act, thelegislature specifically included the salaries of committeemembers, but did not mention county employee salaries. Under theplain language of the statute, therefore, McClure argues that thesalaries of the county employees are not recoverable. We agree. Had the legislature intended for county employees' salaries to berecoverable, we must assume it would have drafted the statute toso provide.

Although this is a case of first impression, we look to oursupreme court's decision in Gage v. Village of Wilmette, 230 Ill.428, 82 N.E. 656 (1907), for its interpretation of a specialassessment statute containing a similarly worded provision. InGage, the Village of Wilmette completed a special assessment fora sewer improvement and sought reimbursement for a portion of thesalaries of village employees serving on the local board ofimprovements. The court stated:

"It would be impracticable, however, to takefrom the funds of a particular assessment themoney to pay, proportionately, the regularsalary of any employee of the local board ofimprovements. The law does not fix any feesfor services for the proceedings before theboard in making an assessment, and if it wereattempted to pay, proportionately, the salaryof any city employee from any assessment, sucha division would necessarily be arbitrary andwould be impossible to carry out withoutactually charging to one assessment a portionof the costs of other local improvements. This cannot be done." Gage, 230 Ill. at 435,82 N.E. at 659.

In the case sub judice, it would also be impracticable to attemptto identify the percentage of the county employees' time spent onthis particular special assessment.

The County contends that if it is not allowed to recoup theseindirect expenses, a public benefit will be conferred solely uponprivate citizens, which is unconstitutional. See Ill. Const. 1970,art. VIII,