Court Opinion

ID: 9819233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:39.880351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.595538
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOMER, specially concurring: I agree that Stark County failed to prove that the Harold Dustin Bridge project qualifies for the mandatory cost-sharing provisions of section 5 — 503 Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/5 — 503 (West 1994)). However, I believe that the majority opinion establishes a faulty definition of “county line highway,” which may create controversy in some adjoining counties where none now exists. The majority attempts to extrapolate a definition of “county line highway’ from section 5 — 503. I believe this is the wrong approach since the section was never intended to define “county line highway’ but to describe which structures qualify for mandatory cost sharing. Under section 5 — 503, the structures that qualify are located on county highways, township roads or district roads on county lines, and structures on such county line highways where such highways deviate within 80 rods of the established county line. A plain reading of the statute reveals the phrase “such county line highways,” as used here, refers to “county highways, township roads or district roads on county lines.” This language does not work in reverse to establish a definition of “county line highway.” It seems more likely that the General Assembly found it unnecessary to define “county line highway” because those roads that were county line highways were well known and designated as such. What the opinion seems to rely on to come to its conclusion is that Stark County failed to prove the portion of the road in Henry County was within 80 rods of the county line. Such a technical approach is faulty. The definition established in the opinion may result in some structures physically located on county lines being excluded from mandatory cost sharing. Such would be the case with a road that tracks a county line for a short distance before vectoring off in another direction. Even if the structure lay squarely on the county line in such instance, the majority opinion would exempt it from mandatory cost sharing, merely because the road upon which it is located eventually deviates more than 80 rods from the county line and therefore cannot be considered a “county line highway.” Conversely, a neighboring county could be compelled to share the cost of a structure located on a road that never connects with the county line and that the counties never before contemplated constituted a county line highway. This would be true even if no remarkable terrain characteristics would have made construction of a road on the county line difficult or impossible. I do not believe the legislature ever intended such anomalous results. The subject bridge does not qualify for mandatory cost sharing under section 5 — 503 because it is not a structure located on a highway or road on a county line. While it is not necessary for the structure, itself, to lie on the county fine, I believe the plain language of the statute should be reasonably construed to require at least portions of the road on both ends of the structure on which the road is located to lie on the county line. Further, such segment of road containing the structure must deviate no more than 80 rods from the county line in order to invoke mandatory cost sharing. The evidence estáblished that although the road in question crossed the Stark-Henry County lines in two locations, it was not a road on a county line within the contemplation of section 5 — 503. Permissive cost sharing for structures that cross county lines is prescribed in section 5 — 502. While I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case, I disagree with its rationale.