People ex rel. Vermilion County Conservation Dist. v. Lenover

• Decision Date: 26 September 1969
• Docket Number: No. 42034,42034
• Citation: 43 Ill.2d 209,251 N.E.2d 175
• Parties: The PEOPLE ex rel. VERMILION COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT et al., Appellees, v. Lester L. LENOVER, Treasurer of Vermilion County Conservation District, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 175

251 N.E.2d 175

43 Ill.2d 209

The PEOPLE ex rel. VERMILION COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT et al., Appellees, v. Lester L. LENOVER, Treasurer of Vermilion County Conservation District, Appellant.

No. 42034.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 26, 1969.

Stifler & Snyder, Danville (Carroll E. Snyder, Danville, of counsel), for appellant.

John M. Jones, State's Atty., of Danville, for appellees.

WARD, Justice.

On December 10, 1968, the Vermilion County Conservation District (hereafter, the 'District') adopted an ordinance providing for the issuance by it of general obligation bonds in the principal amount of $1,500,000. The issue's purpose was to finance the acquisition for public benefit of certain real property, under a program designed to conserve the natural resources of the Vermilion River basin. The ordinance also levied taxes to satisfy principal and interest obligations on the bonds. The District subsequently brought this Mandamus and declaratory judgment action in the circuit court to compel the appellant, the treasurer of the District, to perform certain required duties implementing the bond issue which the appellant had refused to perform. The litigation was instituted also to resolve questions raised by the appellant as to the constitutionality of the Conservation District Act and the constitutional authority of the District to issue bonds and to levy taxes to provide for their redemption. The trial court entered a decree directing a writ of Mandamus to issue and rejecting the appellant's constitutional challenge to the Act and the financing authority of the District. The appeal has come directly to this court, questions under the constitution being involved.

In 1966, voters of Vermilion County approved a referendum to organize a conservation district, under the terms of the Conservation District Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 57 1/2, par. 101 et seq.) Under the Act, as originally drawn, members of the board of trustees of the district were to be appointed by the chairman of the county board of Vermilion County. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 57 1/2, par. 105.) In 1967, the Act was amended, without a referendum, to provide that appointments of district trustees by a county board chairman would be subject to the consent of the full county board. Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 57 1/2, par. 105.

It is claimed by the appellant that by virtue of the 1967 amendment, the presently constituted board of the District does not qualify as a 'corporate authority', within the meaning of section 9 of article IX of the Illinois constitution, S.H.A., and, therefore, it may not constitutionally levy taxes, as only 'corporate authorities' of municipal corporations are authorized to levy taxes under the cited section of the constitution.

An important object of this constitutional provision is to preclude the legislature from granting the power of local taxation to persons beyond the control of those affected by the taxation. (Harward v. St. Clair and Monroe Levee and Drainage Co., 51 Ill. 130, 136; see also Cornell v. People ex rel. Walsh, 107 Ill. 372, 380--381.) The provision has accordingly been construed by this court as a limitation upon the power of the legislature to delegate the right of local taxation to any other than the corporate authorities of the district to be subjected to the taxation. (Morgan v. Schusselle, 228 Ill. 106, 112, 81 N.E. 814; People ex rel. Egan v. City of Chicago, 310 Ill. 534, 537, 142 N.E. 161.) The term 'corporate authorities,' within the purview of section 9 of article IX, has thus been consistently defined as those officers who are either elected directly by the persons to be taxed, or appointed in some manner to which those persons have given their assent. McFarlane v. Hotz, 401 Ill. 506, 512, 82 N.E.2d 650, 310 Ill. at 537, 142 N.E. 161, 228 Ill. at 112, 81 N.E. 814.

Here, the District's board of trustees was not directly elected. The appellant concedes that the people of the county, by voting to organize as a conservation district under the Act, consented to the method of appointment of district trustees then provided in the statute. He complains, however, that the 1967 amendment to the statute provides an 'altered' form of appointment without the voters' assent, so that the Board is no longer a 'corporate authority.' To support his argument that the amendment was invalidating, Cornell v. People ex rel. Walsh, 107 Ill. 372 is cited. However, Cornell is clearly not applicable.

In that case, an act which created a park district was approved by referendum vote of the people of the district. The statute provided that all vacancies on the board of commissioners were to be filled by the judge of the circuit court of the county where the district was located. An amendment to the act, which was not submitted for voter approval, changed this method of selection of park commissioners from appointment by the circuit judge of the county to appointment by the Governor. This court held that the commissioners appointed by the Governor under this amendment, with power to impose taxes, did not constitute the corporate authorities of the district, as the people had not assented to this mode of appointment of commissioners. In drawing this conclusion, the court stated that the people of the district had approved only appointment by the circuit judge and that 'It can not be said they would have given their assent to the act if the appointing power had been left in the hands of the Governor. They may have had the most cogent reasons for consenting to an act where the appointing power was left in the hands of a public officer residing in their own county, occupying a position which of itself would place him above any and all political influences which might be brought to bear upon a political officer of the State entrusted with the appointing power.' 107 Ill. at 382.

Here, there has been no comparable transfer, without a referendum, from local to State control of board appointments, nor any other form of abolition or impairment of the method of appointment of trustees approved by the people. Rather, the basic method of appointment of district trustees by the county board chairman is retained under the amendatory legislation; the amendment simply subjects the chairman's appointments to the approval of the county board and thus provides for broadened local control.

To argue that because of the amendment the District's trustees were not appointed in a manner consented to by the people is unrealistic and strained. We find that the board of trustees of the District is a duly constituted corporate authority under the constitution, with appropriate authority to levy taxes.

We find without merit the appellant's related argument that the District's issuing of bonds to be redeemed through taxation, without submitting the proposition to a referendum, is constitutionally forbidden. Specific legislation (section 15 of the Conservation District Act) does empower districts to issue bonds for the acquisition of real property, as here, without obtaining the consent of the electorate. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 57 1/2, par. 115.) Our expression in People ex rel. Adamowski v. Metropolitan Sanitary District, 14 Ill.2d 271, 150 N.E.2d 361, is dispositive of the claim that a referendum is constitutionally required: 'The taxpayers are given constitutional control over the imposition of taxes by having a voice in the selection of, or the mode of selection of, the corporate authorities who impose taxes. * * * However, there is no constitutional requirement that the issuance of bonds imposing a burden of taxation be submitted to the voters. * * * The people of the (sanitary) district were not deprived of their property without due process of law by the failure of these amendatory acts to require submission of the question of issuance of bonds for establishing these working cash funds to the vote of the people.' 14 Ill.2d at 281--282, 150 N.E.2d at 367; accord, Ruth v. Aurora Sanitary Dist., 17 Ill.2d 11, 21, 22, 158 N.E.2d 601.

The appellant alleges that the District is merely an 'alter ego' of the county and a 'sham' which was created in an unconstitutional attempt to avoid the limitations on the fiscal powers of counties imposed by the Illinois constitution. This argument is misguided.

It is true that as called for by section 4 of the Conservation District Act the boundaries of the District are coextensive with those of Vermilion County. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 57 1/2, par. 104.) However, as we said in Board of Education v. Upham, 357 Ill. 263, 191 N.E. 876, 94 A.L.R. 813, regarding the corporate existence of a board of education whose boundaries were coterminous with those of the city of Chicago: 'The General Assembly had the power to make the board a body politic, and it did so. Instances are numerous where the territory of one municipal corporation is superimposed upon another. The boundaries of one may be either greater, smaller or coterminous with the other. The identity of territorial limits of overlapping corporations is immaterial if the corporations have separate and distinct governmental purposes. Wilson v. Board of Trustees, 133 Ill. 443, 27 N.E. 203. Each corporation may contract corporate indebtedness up to its constitutional limitation without reference to the indebtedness of any other corporation embraced wholly or in part within its territory. Highway Comrs. v. City of Bloomington, 253 Ill. 164, 97 N.E. 280.' 357 Ill. at 267, 191 N.E. at 877.

Similarly, in Perkins v. Board of County Comrs. of Cook County, 271 Ill. 449, 111 N.E. 580, this court recognized a forest preserve district to be a municipal corporation distinct from the county of its location, though the district and county had identical boundaries and the members of the county board were, Ex officio, the commissioners of the district. It was stated, at p. 460, 111 N.E. at p. 585, that 'The power of the Legislature in this state to create...