now we have a fixed work constructed by a public body and under section two of the act that equals a public work which triggers the obligation of paper mill and wages by all contractors and subcontractors underwritten the second entire construction projects cost with one hundred fifty thousand dollars and also the conveyance of public land for the nominal value of one dollar under section two of the act the prevailing wage act the scheme provides for at least three types of public bodies one grant of public funds and that is the fact taxpayer money with taxpayer money is used to construct a fixed work project that private and key is transformed into a public body for purposes of the project now this is the department of labor's interpretation of the act for at least since two thousand since the attorney general's advisory opinion and it is well s institution most that characteristics is too narrow of an interpretation of that language because inter meeting it so narrowly for the brought her to says that the legislature had in mind in that being the prevailing wage a certain that with taxpayer money is an issue the legislature has at least two interests in mind that the cases discussed one is to provide workers with a fair honest decent living wage because taxpayer money is being used the state has an interest in protecting the workers that reside in the state of illinois and the senate interests although my mandating a prevailing wage it removes the incentive from contractors and soft contractors to import from out of state cheaper labor and  contractors and and some contractors an incentive by requiring them to make revealing wages to hire workers in the locality of where the project is being constructed and we believe this interpretation is supported by public at ninety six fifty eight and i  act applies now and we contend that that was a clarification of existing law that is exactly what attorney general jim ryan had in mind about in two thousand more evidence that the fact that the public at ninety six fifty eight is a clarification of existing laws from the list debates that we've appended to our first supplemental brief of the legislation or is there speak in terms of this will provide clarity for contractors and subcontractors because there is some confusion under the language of the act whether or not the receives public funding for a particular project and that is the key fact that triggers the prevailing wage or turning to this second issue the supreme court granted summary judgment here on the basis that and where the legislature does not provide for condition one should not be read into the statute and in fact holding that notice is not a condition precedent is directly on point with this court's recent decision in two thousand and seven in the branch construction company case in that case the contractor claimed that he did not have actual actual notice that the prevailing wage rate had been revived and this court held that actual notice is not a condition precedent in true general said that as a fact that all the construction was financed by a the money given by the city of rock island which is incorrect the attorney general further stated that ten percent of the construction cost or to be for by on the money allocated we read in the agreement what it says is that the money can be used for any of the following site devoted to playing engineering marketing professional fees mortgage interest were construction that's the next thing is on the job on what is unique about this case also it is none of the contracts involved in this case the contract with the city the contract with brad in rock island the aligning receive tax money for many many years the core is a line of holes section two of the public by definition and puts it in italics the following statement fact if the time that this case was decided by the trial court we didn't go to do what took place since this appeal star there were two changes to the prevailing wage picture and that was to intervene in case in the fourth district which has direct application the first change was public a ninety six fifty eight in what he did is it i'm  spake this is an expansion of the prevailing wage  normal enters into an agreement with character to develop residential properties i'm happy as agreed to spend in the bottom close to a million and a half dollars they took out some  payment when the project was completed occupancy our idea that this core focused on the rules of interpretation if you list a series of acts which would fall under the coverage all between a rock island partners in the city the stated reason was to use a building which will create a jobs and keep brother jobs money here is directly tied to the construction project and as you pointed out your honor that everything about the financing and development that's all tied into the construction project in fact the city says that they wish to support the developer in argument regarding you drank that's correct brand the court did hold that interest the penalties were penalties up do not apply where contractor did not have notice what we are doing is first c one thirty three of the record it's perfectly clear the circuit court granted summary judgment on the notice issue it's that it's inequitable to hold the sub contractor liable if they did not have notice and that's what several refers to when it argues that none of the contracts was a condition precedent is irrelevant whether the contract with the issue had language purporting to claim that prevailing wages apply and in fact the purpose of the act has to be the central focus the purpose of the exit protect the workers and the laborers not contractors and subcontractors certainly it is a noble goal to bring business into local communities of the state of illinois because representative miller mentioned in the public  it is also a very real goal and very real interest to protect the workers who are engaged in construction projects and the legislature has determined here in a cost benefit analysis that protecting the workers is the primary goal of the prevailing wage at i've also  talk about the sicker decision as if there really has no bearing on these zero was interning on prior version of the prevailing wage and a focus on the public use element that the construction project has to serve a public use for the terms of the it and figure out what are the facts in this case the burden the onus of discovering whether the prevailing wage eck apply should be on the contractors and subcontractors not on the laborers who are usually men or women of average  right and we argue that institution should be given a broad definition in order to serve a broad purposes of the prevailing wage and under saddle is an argument suppose this construction project was funded one hundred