Opinion ID: 3134534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Imposition of Budget by the Authority

Text: The City argues that the appellate court erred in holding that the Act permitted the Authority to impose a budget of its own making on the City. The City points out that no provision of the statute expressly confers such a power on the Authority, and further argues that it would be improper to infer such an important power from the more general enabling language of the statute. The Authority, in contrast, argues that this court should infer the power to impose a budget from statutory language granting the Authority “all powers necessary to meet its responsibilities and to carry out its purposes and the purposes of this Division.” 65 ILCS 5/8–12–6(b) (West 1996). The Authority argues that such an inference is proper in light of the broad remedial purposes of the Act. This court has consistently held that the starting place in interpreting the meaning of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent in enacting the statute. See, e.g ., Balmoral Racing Club, Inc. v. Illinois Racing Board , 151 Ill. 2d 367, 390 (1992); Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education , 142 Ill. 2d 54, 96 (1990); People v. Madison , 121 Ill. 2d 195, 200 (1988). “ ‘ “This is to be done primarily from a consideration of the legislative language itself, which affords the best means of [the statute’s] exposition .” ’ ” Maloney v. Bower , 113 Ill. 2d 473, 479 (1986), quoting Franzese v. Trinko , 66 Ill. 2d 136, 139 (1977), quoting Western National Bank v. Village of Kildeer , 19 Ill. 2d 342, 350 (1960). We are also mindful that “[w]e should not attempt to read the statute other than in the manner in which it was written.” Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund , 95 Ill. 2d 211, 215 (1983). Thus, in determining whether the Act permitted the Authority to impose a budget on the City after the City allegedly failed to adopt a satisfactory budget on its own, we must look first to the language of the statute itself. Section 8–12–16 of the Act describes the role which the legislature intended for the Authority to have in the budgetmaking process: “The financially distressed city shall develop, adopt and submit to the Authority  an annual Budget for each  fiscal year. After adoption by the city, the city shall submit each Budget to the Authority for its approval not later than 60 days prior to the commencement of the fiscal year to which the Budget relates. The Authority shall approve or reject the Budget not later than 30 days prior to the commencement of the fiscal year. No Budget shall have force or effect without approval of the Authority. Each Budget shall be developed, submitted, approved and monitored in accordance with the following procedures: (1) Each Budget submitted by the financially distressed city shall be based upon revenue estimates approved or prepared by the Authority . (2) Each Budget shall contain such information and detail as may be prescribed by the Authority.  (3) The Authority shall approve each Budget if, in its judgment, the Budget is complete with respect to providing a detailed accounting of revenues and expenditures, is reasonably capable of being achieved, will meet the requirement [of being balanced] set forth in Section 8–12–14, and will be consistent with the Financial Plan in effect. Otherwise, the Authority shall reject the Budget.  No Budget submitted by the financially distressed city shall be arbitrarily or capriciously rejected by the Authority. Any rejection by the Authority of any Budget submitted by the city shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the rejection. In the event of rejection, the Authority may prescribe a procedure and standards for revision of the Budget by the city.” 65 ILCS 5/8–12–16 (West 1996). It is clear from the text of this statute that the General Assembly intended for the elected city government to retain its role as the body charged with crafting and adopting a budget. The statute commands the financially distressed city to “develop, adopt and submit  an annual budget” for the Authority’s review. The Authority, for its part, is given a direct command to approve the budget if it complies with the statutory requirements, and to reject the budget if it does not. Nowhere in the statute has the General Assembly even hinted that the Authority may simply take over and draft the budget itself once two proposed city budgets have been rejected. On the contrary, the statute plainly states that even after a city’s proposed budget is rejected, the budgetmaking power remains with the city. The statute provides: “In the event of rejection, the Authority may prescribe a procedure and standards for revision of the Budget by the city .” (Emphasis added.) 65 ILCS 5/8–12–16(3) (West 1996). In addition to the procedure described in section 8–12–16, the statute gives the Authority a powerful tool in dealing with a city that fails to submit an acceptable budget proposal. Section 8–12–21(2) of the statute provides: “The Authority in its sole discretion may intercept any payments that the city from time to time is entitled to receive from any funds then or thereafter held by the State Treasurer to the credit of the city or otherwise in the custody of the State Treasurer to the credit of the city, whether in or outside of the State Treasury, upon the occurrence of any of the following: