aware of projects that were clearly public works the village erected of water flan it with a new well on line in there and had to install a connection it upgrade of the sewer system and each and every time the building chad to pass an ordinance and have a contract call for prevailing wage to be paid because these projects for thirty modifications it is my perception or my understanding justice is that the difference night in the village of the mayor has to send a crew out to excavate the hole which will foot we fill in the water with water because there is a rupture and do something to seal the system and be make sure that the system has enough pressure to carry water and that it's not in tampa native during the process is my understanding of the attorney general's position working prevail on that kind of an emergency repair and it seems to me like we're talking about the  y here because we're not arguing that modification in that particular instance the village under the attorney general's position would have to fall back and pass an ordinance have a stance you have an  ordinance authorize a contract signing a contract with the area to make sure the prevailing wage would be paid because the argument would be that by sealing this broken pipe that was already in place here each as of ten has effect ly modified the system or is undergoing a public works project and i'm not sure that that's what the general simply wouldn't so our main argument in this case is that it's clear under the prevailing wage at is the fact that we have to look elsewhere for the definition of public utility and not necessarily within the prevailing wage act and as we've argued under the public utilities act that's one place the court can look to see a consistent definition offered by the same general assembly on what a public utility is and specifically within the public utilities a it identifies that corporations that operate or manage for public use of public utility and i won't read exist as i know if you don't prefer that but there are things that indicate that it is probably still these are companies that undergo activities that are for the public good water delivery system clearly falls under the the concept of utility and erase his responsibility is to aid in the delivery of water throughout the village and be met everyone who pays for the the service so when you look at arak a springfield leider move to the upon these cases from other appellate districts that seem to support springfield light you see this language that talks about the delivery of a commodity or service treating everybody the same thing useful to the public service is the very reason for the existence of a public utility and so forth and even have a case which mentions specifically of public utility but i think our whole hierarchy of our defense rests on the fact that we believe the r h is utility rather other aspects of the statute that we've touched on in terms of the public work sack and we believe that the public works section doesn't apply first of all we believe your age has already been exempted but that this is in the public works type of activity we recognize in the attorney general's pointed out within the public works exception in the public utility the fact that they mention specific items like manger scene repair but that would get to the the equipment in the modification of your role system if one is already exempted by the public utilities were by statute and by mandate segregated from the general tax funds and that's certainly the case here within the contract between your reach and the minute the village is required to pay your rage out of user fees for the water there is no special tax assessment general property tax assessment doesn't apply it's all within the special fund so again i would rest primarily on the public utility exception in the public utility argument and rely on this court to define where public utility fits in the context of other cases and stanch but we also don't believe that he arranged qualifies as a public works project in terms of em reconsider or even the subpoena at this point i think the whole ballgame is what this court considers in terms of the definition of public utility whether or not there is an exception so i can spare a whistle argument how often does somebody in my position do that that page eighty eight of the record in response to another in korea and that request to produce the e r h said they had received some documentations from a different utilities that i think that should be an important consideration but i think there's or there are other provisions in the public utilities act and in the common law that need to be considered as well for example there is a provision in the public utilities act in that section eight one zero one that says that a public utility assumes the duty of her providing a service to the public indiscriminately i mean equal terms yeah raich says they do that but i don't think  contractor with the village but not and their duties are to the village and i think that's an important distinction and another important part of the definition of public utility is section three one o five and unfortunately it's a badly worded section it basically starts out by saying public utilities that the following are not public utilities and then they say a public utility basically that is either own or maintained by a government provisions of the municipal code concerning water works i think section three one zero five b the exclusion there is designed for situations like this where i mean it's a pallet he owns water works and it's designed to take it out of public utility treatment and to put up with these waterworks her visions of the municipal  consideration as well and also i would ask the court to consider that it's if this is a public used to leave it is somewhat strange that they don't have any contact with the interstate commerce commission which regulates public utility and i believe grief says if there are public utility they should be doing things like paying a tax on the gross revenue to help one and if they haven't been sending it back you miss to them they obviously haven't been doing those things and they tracked does provide some important between important things the p r h does not under the contract have responsibility for the water tower it doesn't incur the costs of repairing water or sewer mains if more than twenty feet winds are in they don't incur the cost of equipment replacement there's nothing in the record that indicates that they're involved with collections which i believe you would expect if they were offering their service to the public as opposed to offering it to them that and these waterworks provisions to be maintained including an operations of maintenance fun and the record doesn't indicate that they play any role in maintaining those  so our position is there are contractor they do work work in terms of the villages water system but that would not qualify them as a public utility u would be expected to interact with the i c c and there is another provision to if there really a public utility if they would have to get permission from the i c c younger i believe that and that comes into play you know do you want me to stop from the funds were public funds which would mean that's whether public funds were involved was part of the definition of public works whether they were engaged in public works under section two of the old prevailing wage act that's a fact in two thousand and eight and the requirements are a little different now and i'll explain that h a political subdivision of the state that's sufficient to satisfy the requirement and here we clearly have money passing through are provided by or through the village of a man and as a sackful construction case indicated that the legislature indicated an intent that this be a clarification and that it change in  on one very quickly is repair work is definitely within the definition of what constitutes construction under both sections two and three of the prevailing wage jack and in this case the department was looking for documents that i believe involve related to water made here at home so that type of work would be covered by the prevailing wage act it does fall within the definition of not i'm a registered agent but i think under these circumstances we move to cite additional authority on this question and i believe in this situation where  specifically a two twenty i also yes five bachelors three days one o five it recognizes one is talking about the context of public utilities like power from the news of the cold so forth would be pretty directly actively regulated policy act in one nine hundred sixty nine triggered the advent of federal environmental law the creation of u s e p a the only environmental protection agency and all of the only environmental protection agency authority over water and sewer systems comes from clean water right in the safe room in water act this off rise by the federal level and is terrorism a more stringent of the state level and i think what the public utilities act is recognizing is one point e t a has primary regulatory authority over  and water treatment plants they inspect them they have to approve plans they do they do testing that's were all the units of policies and agencies have to report test results they have to prove to be operating