did you state your name school becomes a class x felony the issue before this court is what evidence is required to prove that a building is a school for the purposes of the statute to get the enhanced for example a preschool is not a school for the purposes of the statute a truck driver school is not a school for the purposes of the statute purpose college is not a school for the purposes of the statute so because the term school and the statute excludes certain things we might otherwise consider to be school there must be actual evidence of what happens in the not just the witnesses conclusion that testify that they have served on interests coolidge children entering the building on weekdays they saw you know buses that regularly drove up and dropped off children so it could be an officer but it wouldn't have to be and certainly a superintendent or someone would be a good witness how do you define weekends continues to be operating as a school on weekends continues to be operating as a school over the over a regular summer break so operation being operational part of what it means is it hasn't been closed for example if if the school board decides to close a school and the teachers are not under contract in the fall then that is not operating as a school you  to the state i did not present testimony about what was happening in this building the fact that the name changed it is a fact test did not testify so the operation of the building one officer was specifically asked whether they were a parent strapping kids off at the building and the answer was it's an  that there are certain things that we might consider to be schools that in fact don't count as schools under the statute and then also cases like like people versus bo that require that specifically for schools for school i'm familiar with neighborhood in this is ye turning to the reimbursement issue the trial court ordered mr hardman to pay five hundred dollars to reimburse the county for the use of the public defender the produce agree that the trial court erred by imposing the ski without conducting a hearing on his ability to pay as required by both due process and the statute that issued before this court is just the remedy for this  determined by what happened initially at the trial court in summers the school remanded the case for a proper hearing only because there was some sort of hearing at the trial court if there had been no statute had been found unconstitutional by charging this without a hearing on the defendant's ability to pay so the purpose of the purposes of the statute was to collect that by having a hearing on the defendant's ability to pay so i am so what happened was not hearing first because under the statute this that hearing is defined by being right yes because because it wasn't on his ability to pay it was just about how many times defense counsel appeared but there were no questions to the but i want to save the deficiency here is that if it doesn't even qualify as a step as a hearing under the statute because the hearing under the statute is to find  addition the legislative intent from the statute was to reduce the cost to the taxpayers that were manning cases for a second chance to conduct the proper hearing where the defendants are presumed indigent to begin with we will defeat the purpose to collect enough money to return to the taxpayers to cover the cost  three man and this is especially true when i came when the evidence already on the record showed that mr hardman had no first simple ability to so from false reasons with this question of what the state needs to prove and what evidence they need to introduce to prove that to demonstrate that a defendant was within a thousand feet of a school i think justice thomas  page seventy nine of the record that there were there was a school at six four six one they all called writers and elementary this testimony was probably to by a second officer both officers had nearly a decade of experience in the area testified as their familiarity with the area as to their familiarity with the area immediately around the school they had made numerous arrests even in the summer of defendant's crime on the blocks immediately around the school and we're talking about the sufficiency of the evidence and we're looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the state i think when you have two officers with extensive knowledge of the area of the community testifying that the building at this location was a school that that is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that the building was in fact a school building they don't think you need  technical or expert testimony on the operations of the building i think that the jurisprudence on this question demonstrates that knowledgeable lay person testimony that a building is a school of the  source defined by the statute is sufficient to prove the issue beyond a reasonable doubt affectively what defendant is doing is asking this court to read an additional element into the crime that that the school active or operating they don't define what active are operating would mean but any definition of those terms would run a foul of the clearly stated a legislative intent of the general assembly when it comes to selling drugs than a thousand feet of a school and just as a perk you you suggested  that we need to draw a distinction between buildings like churches and buildings like school because the statute does and not just that there are specific requirements to find that a church is a church you also look at subsection c which applies only to schools and and and says that explicitly when it comes to schools it doesn't matter whether there are parents struck in their kids off at that time or whether classes are in session or what time of year or time of day it is and that's a recognition of the fact that schools are centers of communities that children congregate at not only when classes in session but over the summer use of the outdoor play areas and playgrounds and  you know even the classrooms and so on for meetings and clubs and so on so forth and the general assembly made this determination that therefore schools are different and regardless of the time of year time of day whether the school is operating  in the most sort of narrow sense of the word is irrelevant to the fact that it is a school and this court should not read an additional element that with forethought intent into the crime and it's also worse and worth noting is just as tapes indicated that the evidence here was uncontested that this was a school at the time of defendant's crime one could imagine a situation which became a factual question officers testified the building at six four six londo was the school i was familiar with the area i knew the area that building was the school and testimony was presented to the contrary that no it was no longer a school and there might be a factual question for the trier of fact to determine whether and it was in fact a school it's a force of north lawndale but here you have the uncontested testimony of two officers that the building in question was a school and and there is no reason to believe that the transition that shot of public schools took with that building from ryerson elementary toward elementary  any impact on the buildings status as a school in july of that summer when you have the uncontested testimony of these two officers that it was a school you know indeed it was as happens if a school if the school is closed if a school wish is shuttered and you know what occurred to me doesn't have to address this issue in this case because in september this building was still a school just operating under a different name  there might be circumstances in which immediately after a public school district to close the school it was still a school for purposes of the statute if that was young tested testimony of the lay person familiar with the area that and kids were still coming to the playgrounds and the school hadn't sort of lost its characteristic as a school in the community till the summer immediately after its closing it ended or what not and again that's not the stuff out actual situation here the courthouse doesn't have to go here but i think the important thing is that when we talk about a school in the statue we're talking about you know something that a layperson with personal knowledge of the building and its and its operation could testify to unless the court has questions for the people on that issue i'll address also the public defender fee issue that's presented by this case the court in this case conducted hearing they all and all this court has said is required for it to be covered by summers that some sort of hearing be conducted here the judge in open court  asked questions on the topic of the appropriate public defender fee and then rendered a rule that's black cloth black was dictionary definition there was a hearing in this case the people this is to do in this case summers people's positions that summer of sting trolls here because there was some sort of a hearing albeit a deficient one and even more deficient than the one that was at issue in summers but there was some sort of a hearing so under summers this court should remand the trial court needs to have the proper hearing and consider the proper questions the people are not asking this court to affirm that the public defender fee that was imposed the second point is clerk without any direction under those circumstances that this court said we're just going to vacate that that see this is a very different situation the judge imposed impose the fee within ninety days after we would published an unpublished decisions that the way he awards reimburse and reimbursement is erroneous so how many times we have to do that unfortunately every time he doesn't have a sufficient  g it's there's nothing in the statute that would suggest or to the court that it should deviate from or prevent this court from following its usual  proper for the proper kind of hearing but there was a hearing here so somers summers says what the remedy is here the man but even if there hadn't been a hearing where the judge imposes the fee in a timely  manner there's no reason for this that this court can't go ahead and and remand for the proper hearing for the judge to determine whether a fee is appropriate at all possible that when the judge conducts the proper hearing that he will come to the conclusion that defendant suggests in this court that defendant has no capacity to pay at all and reach a very different outcome it wouldn't be appropriate for this court to make that kind of factual determination that's the kind of factual determination that then you know the issue has obviously now perhaps surprisingly given its nature made its way to this court for a third time and this time the situation looks identical to what the court considered summers i'm so the analysis an outcome in this case for for this particular issue is very straightforward for the court now as you said before you got to have the hearing you got to ask the right question is this time we really me unfortunately it appears to require at least a second time repeating for some trial courts to ask the necessary questions but there's no there's no reason that the so although it's true that this court let me let me point to this section d of the statute which says that this court may