thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court my name is trying to shred i'm an assistant attorney general and i represent the people of the state of i want no i actually be eleanor a department of labor this case  relating to payment of its workers for water main repairs and that would include cancel chat us the names of the workers also the and it raised several different grounds the most important ones for these purposes the most important ground for our purposes of course is air each is claim that it is a public utility company and that's because under section two of the public utilities act the act is in a play a couple to work that's done directly by a public utility company the circuit court rejected the claim they court's decision in the mississippi river fuel case and the reason for that is this court defined public use in a manner that the company would have to be holding itself out the public as the one providing the service and here it's the village itself that is really providing the water service there is no question here r h does some very significant tasks and hoping the village to undertake that service but it is not holding itself out as the one that's providing the service and one thing that i think  they are also operate there operated by your art but not all the facilities but some of them are operated by your rage the village does maintain some important responsibilities they maintain and operate the tower and the villagers are responsible for repairs of the height that are over twenty feet long among other things but under section three one zero five if the facility i brief discusses some of the reasons for that for one thing the springfield gas case says that really one of the sun for purposes of regulating public utilities involves a desire to regulate the rates better charge to the public but when a municipality is the one that's charging the raid the municipality itself is a celtic pole to voters to its own residents and also part of the purpose of the public utilities act is to get records five b even if we are each net the initial definition of public utility in section three one of five days and we don't think they do because again they do not hold themselves out to the public as providing the service they are merely assisting in providing it so they do not meet the public use requirement reasons that we've mentioned and another i think problem that this would cause if this was recognized as a public utility because this is municipal yoan it's governed by a different statutory framework than the public utilities act it's governed by certain one of works provisions that are in the municipal code they're found dead sixty five it those provisions for example they are concerned wire chile with making sure that if a want to work system is financed through bonds utilities act sort of points in a different direction the public utilities act is more concerned with keeping rates down for the sake of consumers as opposed to the waterworks provisions making sure that for guidance and to the case well defining the public you tell what a public utility is just simply because it is out there and it was out there at the forty one would have understood that there was a definition of public utility in the public utilities that but to be its i mean to the extent that this public the prevailing wage jack i would suggest that perhaps that would mean it should be construed the exception should be construed more now a way because the prevailing wage act proper conduct of aries in maintaining aparisim the water so i mean the village is probably and i'm speculating intimately involved in making sure they're doing it so they're working hand in hand h's services there's i think there's no question that that that's correct but i think the fact that there was a public to benefit is not quite enough under this court's precedent again the mississippi river fuel case i think takes the baddest step farther and under that decision you have to be holding yourself out as the profile actually is committing yourself to provide the service in that case the mississippi river fuel company was undoubtedly providing a significant public benefit by selling natural gas to a couple of public utilities but then resold it to consumers that wasn't quite enough to make them a public utility though i think here we're  think it remains the villagers responsibility and the village again the village is the one that's billing the customers and that's receiving payment from them  so mr schmidt you seem to be suggesting that we since there is no definition of public utility in the prevailing wage act we should look to the public utility and aid that might come within the definition but be said  say be takes it out if we don't look to the public utility act could we not just as the appellate court did the definition that's contained in black's law dictionary which has no exceptions  when it passed the prevailing wage act that there was a long standing definition of public utility in the public utilities act and the wording would have been different so i think that should be taken into account as well your honor and i also it seems to make sense that you might exclude entities from the requirements of the prevailing wage act if their rates are subject if they are public utilities and their ra subject to regulation by the yellow or commerce commission because then you have to wait and see us regulating them and pulling in different sort of in different directions the prevailing wage act saying you must keep wages hi and the public utilities act say you must keep your rates lower but you don't have that situation here because the rates that the mentation charging to its water customers are not regulated by the i c c in fact the regulation would be in these waterworks provisions and that regulation is designed if anything to this court's prior holdings and especially mississippi river fuel corporation we submit that's not enough to meet the public use requirement which is now  create a confusing situation where both the public utilities act and these waterworks provisions of the municipal code might apply  is not a public utility this court could merely remain on to the public court to deal with those defenses i don't think i really have time to go into those defenses now please the court i do want to say disciplinary matter this is my first appearance with the illinois supreme court and i just want to say that to be here along with mr schmidt is a tremendous honor to be a part of the system mr chief justice that there are huge illinois as i was about to mention there are a huge areas in which we are in agreement with the part of labor as we've established the follow up question a moment ago if this were the village of b net operating its own system that it owns the prevailing wage jack would not apply because it's government employees if this were a modification or construction of a new plant or this were a serious extension of the existing plant then i think we agree with the department of labor that that would be public works it wouldn't be operating and maintaining the old system and the prevailing wage act would apply so one of the important things that this court will ultimately considers that you want to adopt an interpretation that doesn't diminish the legislative intent with the prevailing distinction in this case what you do not see in the record from the apartment of labor that cannot exist in the record is that there's an independent staff i mean the implication of the department's arguments is that he meant has the staff that does public works and runs the plans and erase the system in that way that's not in the record because that's not the case the mental abilities of one thousand nine hundred people it has a mayor of six trustees and a part time secretary there is nobody doppler in the plant that's why they hire a contractor they don't have the employees they don't have the expertise and they don't necessarily have access to the expertise because people who run water plants of sewerage treatment plants have to have certifications and be approved by illinois u p a so in this particular case you can see a very extensive contract with twenty five paragraphs of responsibility for your age in terms of running this planet delivering the process of maintaining delivering water in this particular case to the residen the man if he or race does not handle that process in its entirety that it doesn't get done there is no village employee or building set up or village organization to default to it so that's why we argue that if it's clearly within the public utilities exception i'd like you to consider the following scenario it's an older town as so many smaller towns are and that's an important foreign policy consideration here because if we're talking about applying the prevailing wage act and changing the structure of rates and salaries and wages and or when i am operations and maintenance for chicago which of course is on its own very very own scale or rock for rock island or danville or springfield rather significant pounds then there are thousands of customers as a matter of policy but this impact may be able to absorb when you're dealing with the hundreds of small towns that are probably in the exact same position the bean met is with no independent staff and you have five hundred customers then this court's ultimate decision in terms of the interpretation of the prevailing wage act in the public utilities act what i would very serious impact on whether an older population often profit lation in smaller towns will be able to bear the cost of the service cities that have bond issues as this court knows have to charge sufficient rates to cover the debt retirement as well as the operation of her not  maintenance of the plant so there is a huge policy implication in terms of what will happen with a small number of customers if the prevailing wage act world to apply for with mr schmidt this is a sta plain ordinary meaning from the language directly and trained to give not using extrinsic sources of what you're called upon to do so or you can't ascertain the clear meaning i want to get to some of the specific questions i've been asked along the way and will quickly do so but if we look at the hierarchy of the arguments that i believe at least the framework of withdrew from the general breeze with you start with the prevailing wage act which we have all established by now all calls upon paying prevailing wage in certain  public work situations many of which we've mention but it doesn't apply to it doesn't apply in situations in which work is done directly on by a public utility company and as we of the questions for the attorney general we have a situation where the question just astronomy asked this of course frankly on point why do we go to the public utilities and as opposed to something else we know that there is concord an authority between the illinois  justice garment the reason we choose the public utilities act and i know it's not a sufficient argument to indicate that both council of use that framework and of course the fourth this tree when they concluded that the r h was a public utility like the public utilities act but of course this court and draw from other places but if you look at the public you'll utility zach specifically and i know you don't want to extensive quoting but i'll be extremely brief to quote the statute or public utility means every corporation and i'm just reading the highlighted language here who operates on manages within the state directly or indirectly for public use any plant used for and it states specifically in paragraph a one but delivery of water and it states specifically in paragraph eight to the disposal of sewage well in this case we're dealing with the delivery of water in this court were to adopt another statutory source for interpretive public utility first of all it seems to me like the public utility exactly draws us to this given the subject matter by specifically mentioning water and sewerage treatment plants but the problem is for what ultimately have is reading another version or another definition or applying another definition of public utility and not disqualifying or negating the legislative intent clearly in the public utilities ect so that's the crux of our argument  seems to be the framework the attorney general and he are each have been following now i want to get back to some of the early questions here because even the fourth district decided they couldn't ascertain the plain language they could ascertain just by reading the public utilities ad whether your age down and i must say i'm to be diplomatic i'm not i certainly am not a fan of the attorney general view of this paragraph and i don't agree with it and here is why and i see him that's where the attorney general is asserting that the exception that takes us out of public use of public utilities expressivity mentions of three want to five be the public utility does not include utilities that are owned by eight corporation or one i read just a moment ago from the public utility say it specifically said earlier in the section serve the public utility means every corporation and company so the reason that three whole days one zero five b does not apply to this case very clear is that to accept the attorney general's argument you have to shift from being in a i'm talking about public utility companies to be now means we're talking about the pipes in the plant and the physical structure and being that there is no dispute and no question the village of  the water wells the water power the water treatment plant and the delivery system but i would argue that three one hundred five b does not mean the system itself we're still talking about the public utility company and what is also very clearly in the record is the r h is a private corporation the attorney general is not attacked that position your age is not owned by the ability to be men so for three one hundred five b to apply utilities that are owned by well i think you have to look at the contract which is in the record but i believe it's from the attorney general's brief and of the records cited a unicycle age twenty three to twenty five if you look at the contract between the village of b man any or h enterprises there are twenty five paragraphs i think this gets to justice freeman's edition initial question and a couple of justice burke's initial questions as well so maybe i can cover this in one broad swoop there are twenty five paragraphs in this contract i have already asserted for you that the reason the records are devoid of any evidence that there is an independent believes staff dealing with these issues is because no such staff exists they contract this out in the fire and when you look at the contract provisions you can see that your reach is responsible for using its own equipment making certain types of repair buying state of the art equipment when necessary to operate and maintain the plant and that's where i think we start to draw out of the later part of the statute that you're referring to sir that he originally as a matter of fact owns a great deal of the equipment and the property that is used to service this this this point but getting back at some of the initial questions as well here each is responsible for dealing with the public they are responsible from beginning to end for the entire delivery system for the public i mean when before this freak said that they had to look at some of these other cases of the attorney general cited like mississippi river fuel people's energy springfield gas i know these cases basically say they have to be using your property for public good there has to be a public service it has to be on demand and so forth and all of those things apply to this situation here a chasse to run the water plant which takes water from the own deal entirely with the only environmental protection agency in terms of responding to inquiries providing reports providing reports to the public they have to treat the water with chlorine and other sources as you have to wonder the only environmental protection act in the accompanying regulations and what's also clear under the contract is this service has to be available to the public without exception the r h doesn't get to choose or somebody moves in or they add new construction and they want to tap into the water system the contract specifically requires he r h to go out and put in the new taps so that a new building or a new business or a new facility and draw water from this planting areas doesn't get to choose if so is the the concept of the ear each being a public utility paestum and the job it's performing at the time i mean if those five years a year he decides to walk away and just starts doing what they do and it is nothing to do with the type of work they're doing now i don't think you dispute that they're no longer a public utility rate all right if you're reaching out to other jobs along the way of this five years that would definitely not be public utility are they a public utility for one purpose and then not for another purpose well keep in mind that he arranged manages these types of facilities for twenty different municipalities also keep in mind while based on another forth this her company that i was involved in in one thousand nine hundred eighty before this trick said he couldn't go beyond the for the multi year contracts or the five year contract what actually happens in these types of cases the court may be able to ascertain on its own research i realize it's not in the record but  what happens in these types of cases is you see the long term relationships between companies that provide satisfactory service to the public and that these things rarely change a year each has been involved in b meant for example for somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty seven or twenty eight years with a series of five year contracts the relationships with other municipalities which are not before you now are long term so i would argue that by the nature of the fact that they have the expertise the relationship with the p a integration relationship with the  communities and the people on staff to do the testing the boil orders and everything you have to release those riveted from doing any other type of work that would certainly be outside the room public utilities they are not prohibited from doing i assume you're alluding to public works work for example and yours does that in all candor there are times when he arranges operating a plant and i'm distinguish between distinguishing between operation and maintenance and new construction or modification or upgrading a plant that's existed since the solid waste disposal act authorized funding in one nine hundred sixty five so every ten or fifteen years there may be a significant significant addition when i was mayor of b meant we constructed a new water plant the workplace one that was constructed in one nine hundred fifty two here age can do that kind of work because they're already involved and they know the system all they may contract with other people that are different parts of the construction and in those cases judge your age and the other five ten percent is what you would classify as a public utility are they still classified then as a public utility for purposes of the work they're doing for the municipality by a hypothetical and i think that they are public utility i think that the word public utility goes of what your primary function is under illinois corporate law what your expertise is what you primarily do how you hold yourself out and what you're practically doing for these municipalities  context not based on it's based on the rule of a particular job that makes in your in your in your issue no it's based on the role of that corporation in a particular job that makes him a public utility in fact you indicated even with respect to uri for public utility over here but not over here i think they're acting as a public until the one they're operating and maintaining water and sewage treatment plants and that's what they primarily do i'm not telling you that if they just did it on a part time basis or they didn't have this base of expertise or it wasn't their primary function and primary responsible in their primary history over twenty some years and they've been recognized you'll see in the record by the general a public utility you when under the facts as they relate the areas they have to say sometimes well i think they would say primarily think they would say primarily remember in terms of the contract that it's arrange the dishes boil orders not the village to be met it's erase this required operated twenty four hour hotline to respond to customer issues not the village at sea or each that has to go out when there's an emergency repair in the middle of winter and there's going to be a problem of whether or not safe water is going to be delivered to the rest of the community and that's section theories that has to respond to your rage when somebody wants water turned on or turn off the r h when somebody responds in terms of water quality it's the r h end of the contract the and i believe if i read justice freeman is quite an expert on the i c c because of his history so i know you have somebody who will be well versed on this point the attorney general's made a lot of big issue out of whether or not the lack of regulation of the race by the i i would argue that when you're dealing with water and sewage treatment plants there is an interconnection between the only environmental protection agency's responsibility and the i c c for example these plants run on electrical grids there's a natural gas generator in many towns will kick on and run the water plant in the lift stations and the other plants if there is of power failure with traditional sources i'm not arguing that the i c c isn't responsible for the traditional power grid even is attached to these plans and if they chose to regulate the arrange that they have the power to do so under their authority to regulate public utilities my main argument is that with the advent of the environmentally or in one nine hundred seventy that gratian of illinois environmental protection i see my my light is on and i finished very pleased with flu and the advent of the environmental here it will only be as primary responsibility for approving contractors approving arrangements and regulating water and sewage treatment plants so because i believe mr cox is answer was incorrect if this if a meant oh and operated its entire water system as opposed to it it does operate it does operate maintain the water tower met some responsibilities but if it owned an upper it did everything it would not be a public utility section thirty one zero five b if the public utilities act with very utility does not include something that would otherwise be a public utility but is owned by a municipal corporation and operated by its allies c or an operating agent and i think he has conceded that it is in the position of an operating agent so we believe that that exception that limitation on public utility would  definitely apply here and as i pointed out in my opening otherwise i think you create an absurd situation where this type of water facility that's owned by a m you know small municipalities to a situation where workers would have to be paid more of course in this situation it's the r h is workers it's not their workers but you know in terms of the prevailing wage act the legislature has tried and tried to draw that balance in the legislature i think is the one to answer the policy question retraces workers that we're talking about and the legislature has chosen in the prevailing wage act to offer protections to workers like those not only for their own interests oh yes i think it is primarily a statutory interpretation matter and yes equitable i mean certainly the ramifications of deciding one way or another should be taken into account but i think the policy question that he raised is something that the legislature has taken into account in and acting the prevailing wage act and  rage and does not regulate it is very significant this court's mississippi river fuel corporation decision recognized that as a significant factor though again be required to do and in terms of this situation where mr cox seems to argue that the fact that it's subject to regulation by the environmental protection agency somehow means the i c c is more likely to be hands off i think those are separate regulatory schemes and the fact that you know reach is regulated by one would really have no impact on whether it's also it's regulated by the other so i don't think that's really a valid argument again for the reasons that we've stated in our brief and here we would submit that our h is not a public utility company within the meaning of the public utilities act and asked this court to reverse the appellate court's contrary determination thank you thank you he's number one