County Collector of Kane County, Application of, No. 59568

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: NASH
• Citation: 527 N.E.2d 141,172 Ill.App.3d 897,122 Ill.Dec. 769
• Decision Date: 01 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 2-87-0931,No. 59568
• Parties: , 122 Ill.Dec. 769 In re Application of the COUNTY COLLECTOR OF KANE COUNTY for Judgment for Delinquent Taxes for the Year 1985 (The People ex rel. Robert Critton, Kane County Collector, Applicant-Appellee and The City of Aurora, Intervenor-Appellee, v. American National Bank and Trust Company as Trustee under Trust, et al., Objectors-Appellants).

Page 141

527 N.E.2d 141 172 Ill.App.3d 897, 122 Ill.Dec. 769 In re Application of the COUNTY COLLECTOR OF KANE COUNTY for
Judgment for Delinquent Taxes for the Year 1985 (The People
ex rel. Robert Critton, Kane County Collector,
Applicant-Appellee and The City of Aurora,
Intervenor-Appellee, v. American National Bank and Trust
Company as Trustee under Trust No. 59568, et al.,
Objectors-Appellants). No. 2-87-0931. Appellate Court of Illinois,
Second District. Aug. 1, 1988.

[172 Ill.App.3d 899] Paul A. Lewis, argued, Alschuler, Putnam, McWethy, Funkey & Lewis, P.C., Aurora, for American Nat. Bank & Trust.

Michael Weinstein, City Atty., City of Aurora, Law Dept., Ronald R. Moses, Corp. Counsel, City of Aurora, Robert F. Casey, Kane County State's Atty., for City of Aurora.

Patricia Johnson Lord, State's Attys. Office Civil Div., Geneva, for Robert Critton.

Justice NASH delivered the opinion of the court:

Certain tax objectors appeal from an order of the circuit court which overruled their objections to entry of judgment against them for delinquent real estate taxes for 1985. Objectors challenged the extension of the tax levy of the city of Aurora against their property on the ground that at the time the levy ordinance was passed by the city, no appropriation ordinance was in force and effective, and the levy was thus invalid.

The objectors contend on appeal (1) that the levy ordinance was void as to them for failure of the city to comply with the time periods for publication of ordinances prescribed by section 2-28 of the Aurora Code of Ordinances (Aurora, Ill., Code of Ordinances § 2-28) and by section 1-2-4 of the

Page 142

[122 Ill.Dec. 770] Illinois Municipal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 24, par. 1-2-4) as the city failed to publish its appropriation ordinance at least 10 days prior to passing the levy ordinance; and (2) that the subsequent act adopted by the General Assembly, which purports [172 Ill.App.3d 900] to validate Aurora's 1985 tax levy, did not do so.

The City of Aurora responds that by adopting its 1985 appropriation ordinance as a home rule unit, the city repealed and effectively removed the ordinance publication requirements of section 2-28 of Aurora's Code of Ordinances, which had been enacted prior to the adoption of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. The city also asserts that under its home rule powers, it need not follow the publication requirements of section 1-2-4 of the Illinois Municipal Code, and that the apparent limitations on home rule powers found in section 10 of "An Act to revise the law in relation to notices" (Notices Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 100, par. 8.2) were improperly passed by the General Assembly and, thus, do not act to require a home rule unit to follow the publication provisions contained in the Municipal Code. The city further argues that any defect in the adoption of its 1985 levy ordinance was cured with the passage of Public Act 85-855 (1987 Ill.Laws 3554) by the General Assembly and its approval by the Governor.

The objectors each paid their 1985 real estate taxes under protest and filed objections to the city levy. The City of Aurora was permitted to intervene in the application of the county collector for judgment for delinquent taxes for 1985 to present its own case, and a stipulation of fact was entered, as follows: that Aurora was a home rule municipality and had passed both its appropriation and levy ordinance for the 1985 tax year at a meeting of its city council held on March 26, 1985; that no addition, modification, refiling, amendment or substitute for either ordinance was thereafter enacted or filed by the city; and that section 2-28 of the Aurora Code of Ordinances and section 10 of the Notices Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 100, par. 8.2) were both in full force and effect at the time the appropriation and levy ordinances were adopted.

We note, too, that the parties do not dispute that before a city may validly pass an ordinance levying taxes, it must have first passed an appropriation ordinance which is in full force and effect at the time of the adoption of the levy ordinance. People ex rel. Larson v. Thompson (1941), 377 Ill. 104, 109, 35 N.E.2d 355; City of Rockford v. Gill (1979), 75 Ill.2d 334, 343, 26 Ill.Dec. 669, 388 N.E.2d 384; In re Application of County Collector (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 120, 314 N.E.2d 227 (abstract of opinion).

Section 2-28 of the Aurora Code of Ordinances was enacted by its city council at a time prior to the city attaining home rule unit status and was in force at the time of the passage of the appropriation and levy ordinances in issue. It provides, as relevant:

[172 Ill.App.3d 901] "All ordinances of the city * * * making any appropriation, shall (1) be printed in book or pamphlet form, published by authority of the corporate authorities, or (2) be published at least once, within ten (10) days after passage, in one or more newspapers published in the city. No such ordinance shall take effect until ten (10) days after it is so published [with specific exceptions not applicable here]." (Emphasis added.) (Aurora, Ill., Code of Ordinances § 2-28.)

The Aurora ordinance closely tracks the language of the Illinois Municipal Code relating to publication of an appropriation ordinance:

"All ordinances of cities, villages and incorporated towns * * * making any appropriation, shall (1) be printed or published in book or pamphlet form, published by authority of the corporate authorities, or (2) be published at least once, within 30 days after passage, in one or more newspapers published in the municipality, or if no newspaper is published therein, then in one or more newspapers with a general circulation within the municipality. * * * No such ordinance shall take effect until 10 days after it is so published [with exceptions not applicable

Page 143

[122 Ill.Dec. 771] here]." (Emphasis added.) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 24, par. 1-2-4.)

Section 10 of the Notices Act purports to make applicable to both home rule and non-home-rule municipalities those State statutes which require notice to be published, as follows:

"Sec. 10. Laws which require notice to be published or posted by a municipality * * * shall apply to municipalities * * * which are home rule units as well as municipalities * * * which are not home rule units. Any home rule unit may enact an ordinance prescribing more stringent requirements binding upon itself which would serve to give further notice to the public." Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 100, par. 8.2 (Pub.Act 78-458, eff. Oct. 1, 1973).

After considering the arguments of the parties, the trial court found that section 10 of the Notices Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 100, par. 8.2) was passed by the General Assembly pursuant to section 6(i), article VII, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, but to limit and bind a home rule unit to the notice and publication requirements of section 1-2-4 of the Municipal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 24, par. 1-2-4), section 10 should have...