The Vill. of WOODRIDGE v. The Bd. of Educ. of Cmty. HIGH Sch. Dist. 99

• Decision Date: 26 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2-08-0593.,2-08-0593.
• Citation: 342 Ill.Dec. 806,403 Ill.App.3d 559,933 N.E.2d 392
• Parties: The VILLAGE OF WOODRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 99, Defendant-Appellant (The County Board of School Trustees of Du Page County and Unknown Owners, Defendants).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

403 Ill.App.3d 559
933 N.E.2d 392
342 Ill.Dec. 806

The VILLAGE OF WOODRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 99, Defendant-Appellant (The County Board of School Trustees of Du Page County and Unknown Owners, Defendants).

No. 2-08-0593.

Appellate Court of Illinois,Second District.

July 26, 2010.

933 N.E.2d 393

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

933 N.E.2d 394

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

933 N.E.2d 395

Thomas F. Geselbracht, Mariah F. DiGrino, DLA Piper US LLP, Chicago, for Community High School District 99, County Board of School Trustees of Du Page County.

Phillip A. Luetkehans, Robert W. Funk, Schirott, Luetkehans & Garner, P.C., Thomas W. Good, Gorski & Good, Wheaton, for Village of Woodridge.

Todd Faulkner, Brian P. Crowley, Franczek Radelet, P.C., Chicago, for Amici Curiae, Community High School District No. 94, Community Unit School District No. 300, Illinois Association of School Boards, Lincoln-Way Community High School District No. 210, Lockport Township High School District No. 205, Lyons Township High School District No. 204, Naperville Community Unit School District No. 203, New Trier Township High School District No. 203, Oswego Community

933 N.E.2d 396

Unit School District No. 308, Palos Heights School District No. 128, Plainfield Community Consolidated School District No. 202, Schaumburg Elementary School District No. 54, School District U-46, Wheaton Community Unit School District No. 200.

Justice HUDSON delivered the opinion of the court:

342 Ill.Dec. 810

403 Ill.App.3d 561

Defendant, the Board of Education of Community High School District 99 (hereinafter defendant or the district), appeals the Du Page County circuit court's order denying the traverse and motion to dismiss ¹ (hereinafter the traverse) it filed in response to an eminent domain proceeding initiated by plaintiff, the Village of Woodridge (hereinafter plaintiff or the village), as well as the court's denial of its subsequent motion to reconsider that order. The district also appeals the denial of its posttrial motion. The district raises a number of issues relating to both the traverse and the valuation of the property taken by the village. A number of school districts have filed a brief as amici curiae, which we have reviewed and considered. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The instant case commenced when the village filed an eminent domain action on May 23, 2005. The village sought to acquire a parcel (hereinafter the property) adjacent to its village hall and owned by the district. The district, whose territorial boundaries lie within seven municipalities, acquired most of the property in 1967 in a voluntary, negotiated sale. It subsequently acquired the balance of the property in 1995 in a land swap with the village. When the parties made this agreement in 1995, they included a provision that would require the village to grant the district a special-use permit for the property. In 1971, the district and the Woodridge Park District entered into an agreement under which the park district leased the property for park

403 Ill.App.3d 562

and recreation purposes. The lease was for a one-year term, and it automatically renewed each year. The district could terminate the lease with 60 days' notice.

On August 15, 2005, the district adopted a resolution regarding its need for the property. The resolution provided, inter alia, that the property is “necessary, suitable and convenient for school facilities”; that the taking “will materially impair or interfere with the uses already existing, such current uses including but not limited to providing for outdoor educational opportunities and the real estate needs of the district;” that the district will be deprived of the ability to use the property in the future for school facilities; that the district will not realize full value of the property in an eminent domain action; that the district will not be able to purchase comparable property with the proceeds of an eminent domain action; and that the “future taxable value of the [p]roperty will be lost.” The district asserts that we owe deference to the legislative findings it made in the course of adopting the resolution.

During the hearing on the traverse, the following evidence was presented. The village first called Julia Beckman, who was the president of the district. She acknowledged that the district had solicited bids for the property, through a company called Newcastle. She agreed that the district had “potential uses for the property,” and

342 Ill.Dec. 811

933 N.E.2d 397

she explained that the district had drawn up plans for athletic fields. It had “studied various uses for the property,” but it “had no money.” Previously, it had planned to build a third high school on the site, but that was not an “immediate option” due to the failure of a referendum in 1997. She agreed with the village's counsel that “there weren't any particular plans in place and there were just potential uses for the property in May 2005.” Beckman was unaware of any school-sponsored educational activity that had ever taken place on the property, though one was planned for the summer of 2007. To her knowledge, the property had never been used for any classes. She testified that the district lacked classroom space, as the State continued to mandate new classes. Beckman stated that she was aware of the opinion of the district's superintendent that the district could accommodate “a few hundred more students.” She agreed that, “narrowly construed,” the opinion was valid. She was also aware of Dr. John Casarda's demographic report, which concluded that enrollment was at a peak and would decline through 2020. She was aware of no study that concluded otherwise. Beckman further testified that the district would be unable to purchase an acceptable replacement if it received the fair market value of the property. On the other hand, she agreed that the proceeds from a sale of the property could be used to meet “significant needs

403 Ill.App.3d 563

for capital improvement.” The district had considered selling the property.

During cross-examination, Beckman testified that she was a realtor and was familiar with the local market. Though the district considered selling the property, it had never decided to do so. It had never determined that the property was “surplus.” The property itself could not be replaced, as there was no comparable property within the district. She also testified that, in 1997, the district had voted to construct a third high school on the property. She noted that the mere fact that a third high school was not currently a possibility did not foreclose building one in the future. Beckman explained that the reason bids were solicited for the property in 2005 was to ascertain its value. She believed that it was better to solicit bids than to simply get an appraisal, because the property was unique and previous appraisals “just didn't seem to capture its uniqueness.” During redirect examination, Beckman agreed that the effect of the condemnation concerned “the future use of the property”-uses that “may or may not occur.” She acknowledged that her real estate practice consisted primarily of single-family residences and that she had never sold a parcel the size of the property. Further, one of the purposes of having Newcastle determine the value of the property was to see if it was high enough to warrant a sale.

The village next called Dr. David Eblen, the superintendent of the district. Eblen denied that the district had no intention of seeking another referendum to construct a third high school, though he agreed that the district had no specific plan to do so as of May 2005. Previously, there had been three similar referendums, the most recent occurring in 1997, and all three had failed. Eblen agreed that the district did not have the resources to fund such a project. Moreover, the district had never made a decision to develop the property or otherwise use it to meet the district's needs. Eblen acknowledged that the district solicited bids for the property to establish a value so the district could determine whether to sell it and that the district was still considering selling the property. Eblen identified an e-mail authored by him that stated, “the Community High School District 99 Board of Education has agreed

342 Ill.Dec. 812

933 N.E.2d 398

to offer for sale and solicit bids for the district's 44 acre parcel land [ sic ] located in Woodridge.” The e-mail (which was released as part of Newcastle's marketing effort) stated that the district was selling the property to fund capital improvement projects. The marketing release also quoted the district's comptroller as stating that, due to a 2004 study of projected growth in the district, it was determined that a third high school was unnecessary. The release also stated that a majority of the district's constituents believed that the property should be sold.

403 Ill.App.3d 564

During cross-examination, Eblen explained that there had been a recent school board election where three incumbents were reelected. All three were opposed by candidates who advocated selling the property. He explained that, though he believed that the district could absorb a “couple of hundred more students,” it would be difficult in that it would require “classes to be held in less than appropriate areas.” Eblen noted that the first line under the heading in the solicitation for bids stated that the district was not obligated to accept any of the bids it received (he later agreed that this was a standard reservation in the district's solicitations for bids). He added that the fact that the district had determined what it would do with the proceeds of a sale did not mean that it had actually decided to proceed with a sale. Eblen identified plans an architectural firm had drawn up for athletic fields on the property. The district never went ahead with this work due to the...