Court Opinion

ID: 9756111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:07:40.447677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:14.750347
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
President Judge Crumlish, Jr.:
I concur in the result only. I am writing to express my concern for the broad language of the majority in holding that the City of Clairton did not improperly spend special tax funds to satisfy general purpose debts.
The application of funds raised through a special tax levy to pay general expenditures should be limited to situations where the purpose for which the special tax was imposed is no longer capable of being fulfilled. The guiding principle of law is that “[t]axes levied for a specific purpose must be applied to the purpose for which they were levied.” McFarland v. Town of Bourbonnais, 339 Ill. App. 328, 331, 89 N.E.2d 849, 852 (1950). The City of Clairton levied a special tax for debt service on a prospective loan for recreation, a library and shade trees. When the loan was not granted, the $168,000 raised by the special tax was not needed for debt service. Because the purpose for these special tax funds never materialized, the City’s use of these funds to pay its general obligations was not improper.
The majority’s reference to the depressed state of the City of Clairton’s economy should not be construed as licensing the transfer of special fund surpluses to remedy general fund shortfalls caused by economic recession or poor government management. Absent extraordinary circumstances similar to those present here, revenues collected for a particular public purpose must be spent to fulfill that purpose.