Hartman v. Aurora Sanitary Dist.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1961
• Docket Number: No. 36398,36398
• Citation: 23 Ill.2d 109,177 N.E.2d 214
• Parties: Joseph E. HARTMAN, Appellant, v. AURORA SANITARY DISTRICT, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 214

177 N.E.2d 214

23 Ill.2d 109

Joseph E. HARTMAN, Appellant, v. AURORA SANITARY DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 36398.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 22, 1961.

Thomas J. Banbury, Aurora, for appellant.

Robert E. Dolph, Aurora, for appellee.

KLINGBIEL, Justice.

The plaintiff, Joseph E. Hartman, applied for a permit to make a connection with a sewer line of the defendant, Aurora Sanitary District. The permit was granted, but only after he had paid, under protest, the required 'connection' fee of $160. Thereafter he brought this action to recover the amount he had paid, alleging that the ordinance under which the charge was made, and the statute relied upon to authorize it, violated his constitutional rights. The defendant answered, its motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. The plaintiff appeals directly to this court on the ground that the validity of a statute is involved. Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 110, par. 75.

The Aurora Sanitary District is organized under the Sanitary District Act of 1917. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 42, pars. 299-317f.) Its original area was 10 square miles. Annexations have expanded its area to 34 square miles, and its population has increased from 43,000 in 1930 to 80,000. The disposal plant of the District, and its original interceptor lines, were financed by a bond issue which was fully retired in 1946 from the proceeds of taxes levied upon the property then within the District. The plaintiff's property was annexed to the District in 1953, and since that time the plaintiff has paid the taxes levied upon his property for the operation and maintenance of the facilities of the District. In November of 1960 he applied for a permit to make a connection to one of the sewer lines of the District, and the charge which he seeks to recover in this action was imposed at that time.

The ordinance of the District under which the charge was made was adopted in March of 1958. It recited that 'the plant and main or interceptor lines' of the District 'will in their operation and expansion conduce to the better preservation of the public health, comfort and convenience of the community of the District if certain required improvements be made to the existing plant and certain extensions made to the existing interceptor or main line system; that these purposes can best be accomplished by the establishment of a capital improvement fund; that this fund should be acquired in a fair and equitable way from landowners within the area of the District, taking into consideration the fact that the existing capital improvement facilities were constructed at the expense of certain landowners of certain areas within the District; that reasonable classification should be made for contributions to this fund; * * * that connection fees to the Aurora Sanitary District system should be charged in proportion to the benefits received and that it is the determination of the Board of Trustees to provide for depreciation and obsolescence of the plant * * * by the establishment of this fund and the contributions thereto in a fair and equitable manner proportionate to the benefits gained.'

The ordinance then divided the District into two areas: 'Class One,' including the original territory of the District, and those areas annexed prior to December 31, 1948, and 'Class Two,' including all other territory within the District. Four categories, 'Single family dwelling,' Multiple family dwelling,' 'Industrial or commercial establishments' and 'Public buildings' were defined, and fees were established for each category in each of the two areas established by the ordinance. For structures in Class Two the fee was described as a 'connection and inspection fee,' and for those in Class One as an 'inspection fee.' In each instance the fee was fixed at a higher amount in the Class Two area than in the Class One area. For single family dwellings, the category with which we are here concerned, a connection and inspection fee of $160 was imposed in the Class Two area. For a single family dwelling in the Class One area, the inspection for was fixed at $15.

For its authority to enact the ordinance, the District relies upon an amendment to section 7 of the Sanitary District Act of 1917. That amendment, adopted in 1959, provides that 'the Sanitary District shall have power to collect a fair and reasonable charge for connection to its system in addition to those charges covered by normal taxes, for the construction, expansion and extension of the works of the system, the charge to be assessed against new or additional users of the system and to be known as a connection charge. The funds thus collected shall be used by the Sanitary District for its general corporate purposes with primary application thereof being made by the necessary expansion of the works of the system to meet the requirements of the new users thereof.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 42, par. 306.

The parties before us have argued principally the constitutionality of the statute and ordinance. Before reaching the constitutional issue, however, we must first determine if the statute authorizes the adoption of the kind of ordinance here involved. The legislature has empowered the Sanitary District 'to collect a fair and reasonable charge for connection to its system * * * for the construction, expansion and extension of the works of the system,' from new users of the system. The ordinance of defendant District has established such connection fee at $160 in one area and $15 in another. While the record before us does not indicate the precise method by which the connection fees were established, the ordinance recites 'that connection fees to the Aurora Sanitary District system should be charged in proportion to the benefits received and that it is the determination of the Board of Trustees to provide for depreciation and obsolescence of the plant, interceptor or main line facilities and all other facilities and appurtenances of the Aurora Sanitary District system by the establishment of this fund and the contributions thereto in a fair and equitable manner proportionate to the benefits gained.'

In the case at bar the General Assembly has delegated to the District the power to collect a charge from new users for connection to its system. In the absence of precise directions as to the manner in which such charge is to be established, it is implicit that it must be reasonable. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Chicago, 385 Ill. 565, 53 N.E.2d 612; City of Mt. Vernon v. Julian, 369 Ill. 447, 17 N.E.2d 52, 119 A.L.R. 747; 8 I.L.P. Cities, Villages, and other Municipal Corporations § 135. Nevertheless, the District, of necessity, must be given discretion in determining the amount of such a charge. We know of no requirement that a municipality, acting pursuant to statute, must affirmatively show the criteria by which they exercised such discretion.

It does not appear from the face of the ordinance that the connection fee assessed is unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive. Rather the ordinance established a connection fee pursuant to statutory authority. Such an ordinance is presumptively valid, and the burden is upon the party asserting its invalidity. Henson v. City of Chicago, 415 Ill. 564, 114 N.E.2d 778; 8 I.L.P. Cities, Villages, and other Municipal Corporations § 149. It is not unreasonable that the District may use various factors in determining a fair and reasonable charge for connection. Past cost and distance from the plant and other factors cannot be said to be illegitimate criteria in arriving at such a charge. We find nothing in this record to show that this fee is designed to accomplish more than the purposes of the statute. There is no showing of unreasonableness in this record. We therefore conclude that the General Assembly purported to delegate to the District the power to legislate on the subject of connection charges, and that the ordinance before us is a proper exercise of that delegated power.

We therefore must consider the contentions of plaintiff that the purported delegation of power by the General Assembly violates specific provisions of the constitution of Illinois.

The plaintiff insists that both the statute and the ordinance are unconstitutional in that they impose a special nonuniform tax that is neither needful nor for a corporate purpose, in violation of article II, section 2; article IV, section 22; and article IX, sections 1 and 9, of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A.

The District contends, however, that both the ordinance and the enabling statute are legitimate and nondiscriminatory exercises of the police power, and do not constitute an improper tax.

We feel that plaintiff's arguments have been carefully considered in the recent case of Spalding v. City of Granite City, 415 Ill. 274, 113 N.E.2d 567, 569. In that case Granite City enacted an ordinance, pursuant to statute, for the financing of an extension of the sanitary sewer system in the Nameoki addition by means of revenue bonds payable solely by the residents of that area. In answer to the same constitutional attacks as presented here, we said: 'The case at hand involves a situation where a privilege is extended to the property owners of the area to avail themselves of the use of the sewer or not as they see fit, and where the price to be paid for the privilege is tentatively fixed beforehand. Where the use of such privilege is left optional with the property owner, by his election to avail himself of it or not, he contractors with the city to pay the rental fixed by its ordinance, if he...