Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43781,43781 |
| Citation | 269 N.E.2d 457,48 Ill.2d 309 |
| Parties | , 2 ERC 1536 Frederic SOLOMON et al., Appellants, v. NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Jack M. Siegel, Chicago, for appellants.
Murray R. Conzelman, Waukegan, and Calvin D. Trowbridge, C. Richard Johnson and Linda R. Hirshman, Chicago, for appellee; Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Chicago, of counsel.
The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant, North Shore Sanitary District, to enjoin it from issuing bonds authorized by a special election, from expending funds derived from the sale of such bonds, and from utilizing any of such funds for constructing certain contemplated improvements to an existing treatment plant on Clavey Road. The circuit court of Lake County granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs have appealed directly to this court, in that questions involving revenue and arising under the constitution are involved. Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1)(2). Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 110A, par. 302(a)(1)(2).
On March 14, 1968, the defendant district adopted an ordinance calling an election to authorize the issuance of $35,000,000 of bonds to finance a $59,000,000 project to construct additions and improvements to its sewage disposal facilities. The ordinance recited that the Board of Trustees of the district had considered the report of its engineers and had found it 'necessary for the public health and in the best interests of the residents' of the district to construct certain enumerated additions and improvements. The ordinance separated these into three categories: sewage disposal facilities, pumping stations, and intercepting sewers and force mains. Under the first two descriptions, the ordinance briefly set forth the locations of the additions and nature of the new improvements. Under the intercepting sewer and force mains category, the ordinance specified fourteen improvements and additions to its sewage disposal facilities.
The ordinance called the election for May 4, 1968, and specified the form of notice to be given. The notice advised the voters that the purpose of the election was to vote on the following proposition:
'Proposition to issue bonds of North Shore Sanitary District to the amount of Thirty-Five Million Dollars ($35,000,000).
'For the purpose of paying a portion of the cost of constructing additions and improvements to its sewage disposal facilities, including sewage treatment facilities, pumping stations, intercepting sewers and force mains, and acquiring lands, easements, rights of way and equipment and paying the engineering, surveying and other costs incidental thereto.'
The ordinance further specified the form of the ballot, which set forth, as the proposition to be voted upon, the language quoted immediately above.
The proposition passed at the election held on May 4, 1968. In reliance thereon, the district, in 1969, issued and sold $8,000,000 of the authorized bonds. Also, in 1969, the district sought a special use permit from the city of Highland Park for the purpose of constructing a number of specified additions to the Clavey Road Treatment plant in that city. The plaintiffs objected to this proposed expansion, and it is apparently this portion of the project which precipitated this action.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in June of 1970. The complaint challenged the election held to authorize the issuance of the bonds in three general areas: (1) The sufficiency of the election documents, the ordinance, notice and ballot; (2) the constitutionality of the statute authorizing the issuance of the bonds; and (3) the authority of the defendant district to issue the bonds and to levy taxes to pay for them.
The plaintiffs contend that the election documents were void because the ordinance, notice and ballot did not describe with sufficient specificity the nature and location of the improvements and project, and did not set forth the 'duration of' or interest rates for the bonds. They urge that the statute is unconstitutional in that if the defendant may issue bonds and levy taxes thereunder, then the statute permits other than corporate authorities of municipal corporations to assess and collect taxes, and permits the issuance of bonds and the levying of taxes without adequate notice to the taxpayers pursuant to an imcomplete and vague statute. Lastly, and related to a part of the foregoing, is the contention that the defendant is not a 'corporate authority' authorized by the constitution to assess and levy taxes, because the manner in which the board has been selected was changed without the assent of the voters.
The question before us is whether the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendant on the basis of the pleadings and the motion.
The first question pertains to the sufficiency of the election documents. The defendant does not dispute that the election was a special election (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 46, par. 1--3), and that there was no presumption favoring its validity. (Bilek v. City of Chicago, 396 Ill. 445, 465, 71 N.E.2d 789; Southworth v. Board of Education, 238 Ill. 190, 197, 87 N.E. 403.) It is essential to the validity of a special election that the mode prescribed for conducting it must be complied with in all material respects (People ex rel. Carr v. Chicago Heights Terminal Transfer Railway Co., 319 Ill. 389, 391, 392, 150 N.E. 262), and this includes the giving of adequate notice. Bilek v. City of Chicago, 396 Ill. 445, 459--461 incl., 71 N.E.2d 789; Thatcher v. People ex rel. McCrea, 93 Ill. 240, 244.
The defendant contends that the notice given here was adequate, and we agree. The only notice that is jurisdictional and required for a special election is that prescribed by statute. The notice need not contain more than that described by statute as mandatory. (Bilek v. City of Chicago, 396 Ill. 445, 455, 71 N.E.2d 789.) Section 9 of the Sanitary District Act of 1911 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 42, par. 285) provides the mode of conducting the election for the issuance of bonds. It provides, in part:
'Whenever the board of trustees of such district desires to issue bonds hereunder they shall order an election to be held in such district upon the question. The notice of election shall state the amount of bonds to be issued and the polling places at which such election shall be held, and shall be posted in at least 5 public places at least 20 days prior to the election. Such election notice shall also be published in a newspaper published in said district at least 20 days prior to the election. The board of trustees shall appoint judges for such election, and the returns of such election shall be filed with the clerk of the board and be canvassed and the result ascertained by the board and entered upon the records of the district. If it shall appear that a majority of the voters voting at the election on the question shall have voted in favor of the issue of the bonds, the board of trustees shall order and direct the execution of the bonds for and on behalf of the district. All bonds issued hereunder shall mature in not exceeding 20 annual installments. The ballots at elections held under this section shall be in substantially the following form:
---------------------------------------------
Proposition to issue bonds of YES
..... district to the amount of ----- ----- "
.......... dollars. NO
---------------------------------------------
As to the notice, the statute requires only that it state the amount of bonds to be issued and the polling places at which the election shall be held. The notice contained these matters, and more. It complied with the statutory requirements and was sufficient and adequate notice to sustain the validity of the election.
In Robbins v. Kadyk, 312 Ill. 290, 143 N.E. 863, on which the plaintiffs rely, the court held that the maturity dates and interest rates of the bonds had to be set forth in the notice, but it did so because the statute in that case required that the notice of the election state the date of maturity of the bonds, the rate of interest and whether payable annually or semi-annually. The notice failed to recite the maturity dates of the bonds, the amount of the interest due thereon, and when payable, and the court held that the notice did not, thus, comply with the applicable estatute. The ballot in the case at bar contained not only what was required by the statute, but more.
In Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School Dist., 16 Ill.2d 328, 157 N.E.2d 59, where the question of the validity of a ballot used at an election to authorize the issuance of school bonds was before the court, we stated, at page 332, 157 N.E.2d 59, that where a special statute prescribes the form of the ballot there must be a substantial compliance with the statutory mandate or the election is void. The School Code prescribed that the ballot should clearly indicate the substance of the public measure to be voted upon. At pages 335 and 336, 157 N.E.2d 59, we indicated that this language did not require that the schedule of maturities of the bonds be listed on the ballot as an essential part of the substance of the public measure, and we held that when the ballot purported to list the amount and dates of all of the bond maturities, the omission of one did not vitiate the election.
Our holding in Smith is apropos here. The requirement of the statute in Smith that the substance of the public measure be set forth on the ballot was satisfied if the ballot gave a fair portrayal of the principal features of the proposition in words of plain meaning so that voters could understand it. The incorporation of information beyond that required by the statute would not vitiate the ballot so long as the additional information did not confuse or misinform the voters. (16 Ill.2d 328, 335, 336, 157 N.E.2d 59.) The relevant statu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winkler v. State School Bldg. Authority
...the bond funds were partially utilized. Such authority is based upon the doctrine of laches. See, e.g., Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist., 48 Ill.2d 309, 269 N.E.2d 457 (1971); Drenning v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Topeka, 148 Kan. 366, 81 P.2d 720 (1938); Zeitler v. Town of Hinsdale, 5......
-
Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Bd. of Elections
...connected to and related to each other in nature to satisfy the constitutional provision." In Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary District (1971), 48 Ill.2d 309, 318, 269 N.E.2d 457, the court found that the several separate construction projects submitted for approval on ballot did not violate......
-
Tillman v. Pritzker
...one year after bonds were transferred to a trust and shares in the trust were sold to the public); Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary District , 48 Ill. 2d 309, 322, 269 N.E.2d 457 (1971) (holding that a delay of over two years before bringing suit, coupled with the issuance and sale of $8 mil......
-
Walker v. Oak Cliff Volunteer Fire Protection Dist.
...Sixty-one were opposed.15 Webb v. Clatsop County School Dist., 188 Or. 324, 215 P.2d 368, 372 (1950).16 Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist., 48 Ill.2d 309, 269 N.E.2d 457, 460 (1971); Bouldin v. City of Homewood, 277 Ala. 665, 174 So.2d 306, 313 (1965); Veterans' Finance Comm. v. Betts, s......