Court Opinion

ID: 9534075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:36:42.663456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:25.021825
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: In today’s opinion, a majority of this court concludes that Itasca School District No. 10 did not- violate section 17—1 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/17—1 (West 1996)) by adopting its December 15, 1993, tax levy before adopting its budget for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Because the majority’s holding cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the statute, I respectfully dissent. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Itasca school district operates on a fiscal year that runs from July 1 through June 30. The district adopted a tax levy on December 15, 1993. At the time it made this levy, the district had cash and assets on hand to meet its estimated expenditures through June 30, 1994, and it reasonably anticipated that no proceeds from the levy would be used until the 1994-95 fiscal year, beginning on July 1, 1994. The district adopted its budget for fiscal year 1994-95 on May 11, 1994. Several taxpayers filed objections to their 1993 real estate taxes, arguing that the district’s December 15, 1993, tax levy was invalid because it was adopted in violation of section 17—1 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/17—1 (West 1996)). That statute provides, in relevant part: “If the beginning of the fiscal year of a district is subsequent to the time that the tax levy for such fiscal year shall be made, then such annual budget shall be adopted prior to the time such tax levy shall be made.” 105 ILCS 5/17—1 (West 1996). As the majority correctly points out, the controversy in the present case centers on the meaning of the phrase “for such fiscal year” in section 17—1. More precisely, the relevant question is: “What year is a tax levy ‘for?’ ” The taxpayers insist that, within the meaning of the statute, a tax levy is “for” the fiscal year in which the proceeds of that levy will be used. In contrast, the Du Page County collector argues that a tax levy may also be considered “for” the fiscal year in which it is made. After examining various dictionary definitions of the word “for,” the majority concludes that both the taxpayers’ and the collector’s interpretations of the statute are reasonable, and that the statute is ambiguous. Accordingly, the majority undertakes to determine which of the competing interpretations of the statute “is more consistent with the goals of the legislation.” 187 Ill. 2d at 332. Finding that the taxpayers’ interpretation of the statute would cause practical difficulties and administrative hassles for school districts, the majority adopts the collector’s interpretation and holds that a tax levy should be considered “for” the fiscal year in which it is made. The majority’s error is rooted in its uncritical acceptance of the collector’s characterization of the statute as ambiguous. This is a crucial point, because whatever the merits of the arguments concerning the district’s administrative difficulties, such factors are irrelevant unless the statute, as written, is truly ambiguous. If application of an unambiguous statute would confound orderly school district budgeting procedures, then the remedy lies with the legislature — not with this court. As this court has repeatedly held: “Where an enactment is clear and unambiguous, the court is not free to depart from the plain'language and meaning of the statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express [citations], nor is it necessary for the court to search for any subtle or not readily apparent intention of the legislature.” People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 443 (1997). By its plain terms, section 17—1 applies only “[i]f the beginning of the fiscal year of a district is subsequent to the time that the tax levy for such fiscal year shall be made.” 105 ILCS 5/17—1 (West 1996). If, as the majority holds, a tax levy could be considered “for” the fiscal year in which it is made, regardless of when the proceeds were used, then the beginning of the fiscal year would never be subsequent to the time of the tax levy “for” that year, and the statute would be rendered a nullity. The majority’s answer to this paradox is unconvincing. According to the majority, section 17 — 1 would still apply to a financially distressed school district that found it necessary to adopt a tax levy prior to the start of the next fiscal year in order to issue tax anticipation warrants against that levy. In conducting this analysis, however, the majority seems to assume that such a levy would be “for” the upcoming fiscal year. If that is true, then it can only be because the levy is not actually “for” the fiscal year in which it is made, but rather is “for” the fiscal year in which the proceeds therefrom will be used. However, this is precisely the opposite of the majority’s holding. Because section 17—1 is amenable to only one interpretation, this court is bound to apply the statute as written. Under the facts of this case, the beginning of the 1994-95 fiscal year (July 1, 1994) was indeed subsequent to the time that the tax levy for that fiscal year was made (December 15, 1993). Consequently, section 17—1 required the district to adopt its annual budget for the 1994-95 fiscal year prior to December 15, 1993. Here, however, the district did not adopt its annual budget for 1994-95 until May 11, 1994. Accordingly, the district’s December 15, 1993, tax levy was adopted in violation of section 17—1 and was therefore invalid. Because the majority holds otherwise, I dissent. JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this dissent.