the next and final argument on our call today is john in number eight case number one one zero three nine five one one zero four two two the board of education of auburn community unit school district number ten versus the the auburn district into up and tell and not tell portions should be allowed to stand this is a question of statutory construction and it is state over review the auburn district and the department of revenue are united on this position and we both have argued to the court that the appellate decision may not be allowed to stand the decision raises serious questions under the uniformity because of the illinois constitution in and the arbor district but no legislative guide on how on matters such as the annual levy tax service extension to the revenue raising measures should be dealt with and a now could tell and not to tell district there are competing provisions in the school code and in the telling and the single school district will have to figure out on its own how to deal with those computing provisions because the parties agree and unless this court has any questions on this particular issue the auburn district stands on its reconnect portion of the brief submitted by the department on the issue of the court have any questions moved to the primary issue then before the court which is whether patel she continued to apply to the auburn district as a whole subsequent to it becoming a taxing district with equalised department and its aug twenty eighth two thousand and eight letter to the auburn district in which the letter of the department to decline to issue any formal ruling on auburn district's patel sta hundred s two thirteen eat three that sets forth two conditions that must be met before patel can be applied to a multi county district one of those conditions is that each county must have at least held a referendum under patel the second of those is that the county with the majority of the has approved that referendum in the fifteen years that tell has been available outside of cook would but right now as it is now configured the albert district does not meet those two conditions the parker department is often repeated that the principal purpose of the tell is to give taxpayers greater control over property taxes given that purpose we have to look at the language to discern how that control will be effectuated it was the legislature that chose to condition the application of patel and multi county districts on one the fact that each county at least has considered itself we don't see that any other a tent intent can be gleaned from the language in section two thirteen that intent however is lost if the department's argument is accepted the department argues that the corporate identity of the auburn district is the same now as it was in one thousand nine hundred six when franklin county approved patel and they are in district as then configured became subject to it the department suggests that only under circumstances where that corporate identity has changed would section two thirteen now be relevant but the legislature did not choose the corporate identity as a condition of the the legislature chosen stand the location of the e a p of the tax in different districts that is sort of its geographical identity and when the geographical identity is such that the  county each county has to have a hell of a telegram a referendum now the legislature could easily and chosen the corporate identity as the trigger point but it didn't the ballot question is section two thirteen by which approved the tell could easily have been directed to the voters of a particular test pain district with a specific corporate identity but instead it applies to all taxing districts in any given county and it's put to the all the voters of that county after that point the legislature imposes these two conditions that must be met before patel applies neither of which is that the corporate if the department's arguments are adopted it would strip montgomery county of its voice it would not apply the legislative decision to use territory or location a b a b and the existence of  still be in existence in say one county it is only in the all over district which now has e a v located in both counties where patel would no longer be in existence and it wasn't the board that urges impossible situation but the other district has been treated as a non tell district tense night because since two thousand and seven when the territory was annexed it's been operating as a non to tell district and ha annexation occurred before the vote on patel auburn just would never have become subject to patel so that situation has already been considered by the legislature by the legislature and it's been decided already that  district that's essential to look at here not the county as a whole because it can be separate from the county and it is in many cases for instance lincoln land community college its corporate identity has fifteen counties it's not subject to t it's our position that to thirteen makes it clear they are to tell that no longer applies and because two thirteen can't apply to the auburn just break as it is now can but you can't move to section two fourteen of the tell under section two thirteen which of course directs us back to the language of two thirteen and the conditions contained therein that each county has to have held a referendum i think that we are then you have to be clear in the language of section two thirteen that would tell only applies in a multi county district where both counties have at least considered it and we can't get to t two fourteen without the precursor to thirteen the department argues that it is only under two fourteen net patel could no longer exist in the auburn district and presents a scenario  which you know it could fall into place because the language of two fourteen does not fit the often district the language up to fourteen requires that one of the districts or one of the counties have revoked patel or that they have considered patel and rejected it that hasn't happened here because montgomery county has never considered in the scenario presented them by the department where two fourteen would work is at odds with the often repeated i'm disputed purpose of the tell which is greater control to the taxpayer the scenario is this saying the county would vote to revoke patel some day in the future montgomery county may the auburn district and for how long we don't know it's indefinite could be for ever so the result is that a county that has not even considered to tell would by its lack of consideration of potential be able to control whether the people who put the taliban could ever revoke it and it's not by any action of montgomery county it is fight in action and there is there's there's a laughter or something missing here in the legislation clearly it's a very unusual situation because of that should we be looking at whether it's the district as it was in existence at the time the child became applicable rather than what happened to the district after being on that station or should we be looking at those i think you're arguing what the district is now and what the geographic area is you because you took on some and the reason that they and i argue that all her district has to be looked at now as it is now configured is because you really have to look at it from the inception of this new configuration as i said it's the and there is no need for a vote for that reason right ok would you agree counsel that if this court focuses on how you lose pito protection that the department then prevails no your honor i don't think that's true i don't think the department prevails because the legislature has not focused on how you use the peto protection it is focused on how the tell is apply and it has focused annexation of property in a county that has never considered it tell the results in the till and not being applied then bad is and that's not what the legislature wants that's something the legislature has deal with but that the language the legislature used that's not they aren't districts language they have the legislators language so i think that the only way to look at this is what is the configuration of the taxing district where it's e a p located and have both those counties taken steps to at least consider the town and it's clear that that's what the legislature was attempting so that's why it's our position that two fourteen does not come into play the only other issue is whether or not there is any interpretation of patel that should be given deference by this court and agency interpretation and we have certainly able argument by the attorney general to this court but we have no preexisting interpretation that is to be given due deference all we have is a letter from the department that says no we don't want to get  over this we're not going to give you a formal whirling on your status subsequent to the annexation we're going to make some and vigorous reference to the only two possible provisions that could be applied to call it guidance and then wait to see what happens and that's all that was given by the department the agency that is charged with the interpretation of hell so it is our position that there is no interpretation that is due deference there is no statute ambiguous or otherwise they're out the department or hey i interpreted them as directly on point here and in fact the department said there is no specific provision so there's nothing to which to give deferen it is the legislative corroborative to choose to give way to the location of your avi and require the existence of a patel referendum and that's what the legislature did and that what  what must be given a fact and as the appellate court could not graft new provisions this court cannot give deference to the lack of an interpretation over the plain language of the statute we would ask thank you murphy good morning your honor sir may it please the court rachel murphy assistant attorney general appearing on behalf of the illinois department of revenue and director hamer your honour's our position is very simple the post an exception auburn district is the same taxing district that became subject to patel through referendum the only way it can escape patel is through the revocation referendum process it cannot circumvent the voters annexation of territory our position is the only one that is grounded in the statutory text we agree with the board that the appellate court's decision has no basis in the text there is no basis for splitting the district but the board's decision of the the board's position also is not grounded in the statutory text in contrast the department's position arises from the res sections of the property tax code that sections one one fifty eighteen dash two thirteen and eighteen dash two fourteen section one one fifty defines a taxing district as a school district or other governmental entity with the power to levy taxes so contrary to council's position the legislature has defined the operative entity by its corporate identity not by its geographic boundaries then you look to section two thirteen which says that patel becomes applicable to a taxing district if at the time of the relevant referendum that taxing district meets the criteria of two thirteen two thirteen does not provide for reevaluating a taxing district that has become subject to patel upon a later change in that district's boundaries the board has never pointed to any language in that section that overcomes the words becomes a political and says that you can later really evaluate a taxing district because of a change in circumstances there is no basis in the statutory text for the board's position although it is understandable as a policy matter it simply is not what the statute says and third section two fourteen provides that the only way to remove a tell from a taxing district that became subject to patel under section two thirteen is for the voters to revoke it through another referendum here the auburn district continues to  continues to be subject to tell the entire auburn district because the post an exaggeration district is the same school district as it was in one thousand nine hundred seven it has the same corporate identity which under section one hundred fifty is the relevant characteristic the patel looks to as the board has admitted that it has the same corporate identity and the annexation process simply did not change the district in any way that is cognize of all under patel the the district still has the same school board it still has the same governance it is still the same entity with the power to levy taxes and that district has not met the conditions for revocation under section two fourteen the fact that those conditions haven't been met doesn't mean that section two fourteen is impossible or that our interpretation is absurd it simply means the conditions have not been met to lift patel and the fact that the revocation is not within the district's control is also not a reason to reject the department's interpretation it is within the control of the currently relevant counties which are sangamon and mongomery and yes it is true that sangamon county alone could impose patel on the district because at the time that the referendum was held the district was a single county district and now it's a multi county district and so both counties have to be involved and this furthers the will of the voters and thus further is the undisputed intent of the tao because it is always the affected voters who must have a say it would  patel if a from the start the auburn district had then a multi county district in one thousand nine hundred six and it had only had a point three per cent of its in montgomery county then the district would not be subject to patel because montgomery county has not held a referendum so it  is true that a single county can block application of patel even if a tiny portion of it's only a tiny portion of the district is located in that county and this is because the legislature as reflected in the history was very concerned that they not be imposing patel on counties but that the county board be able to decide whether this question would go to the voters but once patel has become applicable the text is very clear that it cannot be lifted simply by grabbing territory in another county at that point the voters in the an territory take the district as it comes to them they take the same superintendent they take the same school board they take the same governance they take the same entity that has the power to levy taxes and that entity is subject to patel going forward however because they are now part of that district they have a say in whether patel would be lifted and it could be lifted if sang revocation referendum and montgomery holds a initial an initial referendum whereby patel is rejected the auburn district also has other options for raising additional revenue patella does not completely for close increasing its extension there are a number of avenues whereby it can increase the limiting rate it can levy a new rate it can issue a new bond it can increase the extension limitation and it can increase its debt service extension base but all of these have something in common they have to go to the voters just as they do with having revocation of the tell all of these have to be put to the voters understandably the board would like to avoid that and would like to be able to issue bonds without having to go through the referendum process but it must work within the limits of patel because patel has never been revoked and the departments interpretation is the only one that is justified and grounded in the statutory t the board's position simply is one that it would like to see but they cannot point to anything in the text that provides for reevaluation because of a change in boundaries and given the definition of a taxing district as the entity that has the power to levy taxes they cannot simply point to the legislature's concern about when a district has territory and other counties to propose that geographic boundaries are what's relevant here they cannot overcome the plain definition of a taxing destruct and the department's interpretation as i said before is the one that furthers the will of the voters here we have sangamon county which is ninety nine point seven percent of this district and those voters have imposed patel and the montgomery county voters would have an opportunity to rescind patel because they are now part of this district but to accept the board's position would mean that the regional board of school trustees could have territory annexed onto districts could an exterior try from other counties to help that district get out from under patel and annexation under article seven of the school code does not require going to the voters in contrast when you combine a district or reorganize and create a new district you have to go to the voters in a referendum so it is within the control of the regional board to annex territory simply on a petition from a school board and that would create perverse incentives for the regional board to annex territory when a district is contiguous with a county that has not held a patel referendum and just as the board is attempting to do here thereby allow the district to escape to tell mr murphy the  accomplished under seven dash two a of the school code which simply requires petition by the school board and then the regional board can grant that dissolution petition and would subject to administrative review but otherwise the the regional board did not have to involve the voters in this decision if it's subject to administrative review presumably the property owners  students and so forth good to sion to jail they can appear also before the regional board interested parties can appear before the regional board i believe that they have to have appeared before the board in honor and actually the diversion and district was primarily in sangamon i believe it was close to ninety eight percent was in sangamon so it was just a small portion that was in montgomery and the and district was not subject to patel because at the time the sangamon county held the referendum it was a multi county district so that's the contrast between the two it's looking at the district at the time the relevant referendum is held unless the court has further questions we ask that you reverse the decision of the appellate court and declare that patel continues to apply to the auburn district in its entirety  are were a couple of comments that i think really lend support to the auburn districts position here one is that we are talking about the affected voters and the affected voters here are not the same a county voters and i urge the court to keep that in and as a council noted there was no opposition to this dissolution what happened when diversion and district was dissolved and was dissolved because it could not sustain itself this is simply not a family who would rather be in a different district this is an entire district that was dissolved and often district took on some substantial burden when that district was dissolved as part of the record they act there are substantial life health and safety  improvements that must be made and the only reason we are here is because auburn district saw on council opinion to issue bonds of course you have to have a bond council opinion in order to issue these bonds it was upon council that raised the question department of revenue had never raised the question the same way county clerk had been treating the district as a not to tell district sense  january thirty one two thousand and seven and if it were not for buying council we would not be here in auburn district would have gone merrily along this way as a non to tell district so the district is not attempting to impose somebody else's will on that the taxpayers of auburn district this is the will of the auburn district there was no opposition to this dissolution the problem with the department's argument is that attempts to impose a statutory scheme on a district that it no longer fits it's true that the definition in section one fifty does refer to the school district there can be taxes but the definition in the replication portion that the department urges you to apply has a different definition and it says a taxing district that has become subject to patel under section two thirteen and again we are back to the conditions in section two thirteen and one of those conditions is that both counties have to have held a referendum we are in agreement that there is nothing to point to in the statute on this and that is the problem the legislature hasn't dealt with this while we are using the language they have and they are in section two thirteen so our argument is based on the statutory tax the fact that it is a small portion that is located in montgomery county should not even be considered the legislature clearly use the word any e a v not a lot does not go through and they have as our answer with regard to where the is located and unless the court has any further questions i we have split our rebuttal time so i want to make sure we give the department i i just have two points here on ars first even in rebuttal the the board is unable to point to anything in section two thirteen that provides for re evaluation once a taxing district meaning the corporate entity has become subject to tell and second as far as raising money for the improvements the department's position is not that the board is completely for closed from increasing the amount of money it can raise it just has to go to the voters and that is what the legislature intended in passing to tell thank you he's numbers one one zero three nine five n one one zero four two two jenna number eight board of education of auburn community school district nurses the problem of revenue is now taken under advisement mr marshall or port stands