Local Government Law

Senate Bill 584

Topic: 
Administrative Review Law

(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides a means for correcting inadvertent failures to correctly name necessary parties in actions for administrative review, which are called misnomers.

(1) It amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to mandate that final administrative orders list all of the parties of record together with their last known address of record. The final order must also include whether there are any agency rules requiring a motion for reconsideration as a part of obtaining a reviewable final administrative decision and, if so, the rules citation. 

(2) It amends the ARL to prohibit an action for administrative review to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the misnomer of any agency that is properly served with summons issued in the action within the applicable time limits. It also prohibits dismissal for failure to perfectly name an agent if a timely action of administrative review has been filed that identifies the final administrative decision under review and makes a good faith effort to properly name the administrative agency.

(3) It amends the ARL to allow a court to correct misnomers for an erroneous identification of the administrative agency.

Senate Bill 584 passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday but will receive some tweaking amendments. 

House Bill 728

Topic: 
Local Government Wage and Fee Transparency Act

(Jones, D-Calumet City) provides that any attorney who has two or more clients that are units of local government, the attorney shall perform an annual audit of all: (1) fees and charges billed to, and paid by, each unit of local government client; (2) referral fees paid by the attorney to a person or business for the referral of a unit of local government to the attorney; and (3) referral fees paid to the attorney for referring a unit of local government to another attorney. House Bill 728 was just introduced. 

Senate Bill 584

Topic: 
Administrative Procedure Act

(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides a means for correcting inadvertent failures to name necessary parties in actions for administrative review.

(1) It amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to mandate that final administrative orders list all of the parties of record together with their last known address of record. The final order must also include whether there are any agency rules requiring a motion for reconsideration as a part of obtaining a reviewable final administrative decision and, if so, the rules citation. 

(2) It also amends the APA to allow service by electronic mail if agreed to by the parties in contested cases.  

(3) It amends the Administrative Review Law (ARL) in the Code of Civil Procedure to state that this Article is to be liberally construed in the interests of justice to grant an orderly method of judicial review of administrative agency decisions.

(4) It amends the ARL to prohibit an action for administrative review to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the misnomer of any agency that is properly served with summons issued in the action within the applicable time limits. It also prohibits dismissal for failure to perfectly name an agent if a timely action of administrative review has been filed that identifies the final administrative decision under review and makes a good faith effort to properly name the administrative agency.

(5) It amends the ARL to allow a court to correct misnomers for an erroneous identification of the administrative agency.

Senate Bill 584 was just introduced.

 

Senate Bill 9

Topic: 
Business Opportunity Tax Act

(Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights) creates the Business Opportunity Tax that imposes a tax on all entities that issue a Form W-2 or a Form 1099 to a resident of Illinois. It imposes a sliding scale of taxation based on the employer’s total Illinois payroll as follows. (1) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is less than $100,000, then the annual tax is $225; (2) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $100,000 or more but less than $250,000, then the annual tax is $750; (3) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $250,000 or more but less than $500,000, then the annual tax is $3,750; (4) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $500,000 or more but less than $1,500,000, then the annual tax is $7,500; and (5) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $1,500,000 or more, then the annual tax is $15,000.

The following are exempt from taxation under this Act: (1) governmental employers described in Section 707 of the Illinois Income Tax Act; and (2) not-for-profit corporations that are exempt from taxation under Sections 501(c) or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code or organized under the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986. Senate Amendment No. 2 becomes the bill and was just filed. It is part of the “grand bargain” being attempted by Senate leaders.

 

Ezell v. City of Chicago

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Firearms
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 14-3312 & 14-3322 Cons.
Decision Date: 
January 18, 2017
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded

Dist. Ct. did not err in permanently enjoining defendant-City from enforcing zoning ordinance that allowed gun ranges only as special uses in manufacturing districts, since: (1) said ordinance dramatically limited ability to site shooting range within City limits, which, in turn, severely limited citizens’ Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target range; and (2) defendant could only assert speculative claims of harm to justify ordinance. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. upheld zoning ordinance that prohibited gun ranges within 100 feet of another range or within 500 feet of residential district and other uses, Ct. of Appeal found that said ordinance violated Second Amendment because it also severely limited ability to site shooting range within City limits, without corresponding proof of safety hazard. Dist. Ct. also erred in upholding ordinance banning anyone under 18 years old from entering shooting range, since such restriction was overbroad, where teenagers could safely be taught to shoot. (Partial dissent filed.)

Johnson v. Ames

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Elections
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL 121563
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 30, 2016
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
KILBRIDE

Appellee filed referendum petition seeking to place on November 8, 2016 general election ballot the question of imposing term limits on elected office of president of village of Broadview.  Appellant filed objection to petition. Referendum was not vague or ambiguous, and meets basic standard of permitting a clear determination of what voters approved. Altering eligibility requirements for candidates in future elections has no retroactive impact. (KARMEIER, FREEMAN, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring; THOMAS, specially concurring.)

Village of Willow Springs v. Village of Lemont

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Zoning
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (1st) 152670
Decision Date: 
Monday, December 19, 2016
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MIKVA

Village sought to enjoin its neighboring village from approving a zoning reclassification and a proposed property development. Court properly dismissed complaint, as Plaintiff village lacked standing to contest zoning reclassification, which had been approved by time of circuit court's ruling, and lacked standing at that time to challenge remainder of development application which Defendant village had not yet approved. Challenge to enjoin future action and prospectively prevent village approval was improper, as challenges are more properly made to a law's enforcement once it has been enacted. Count alleging that property was a pub lic nuisance was properly dismissed as it failed to allege sufficient facts warranting injunction. (CONNORS and HARRIS, concurring.)

Blanchard v. Berrios

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Home Rule
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL 120315
Decision Date: 
Thursday, December 1, 2016
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
FREEMAN

(Court opinion corrected 12/5/16.) As Cook County is a home rule unit, it is invested with same sovereign power as state government, except where explicitly limited by legislature. Thus, Cook County can exercise its home rule authority by investing subpoena power in the Inspector General, a commission, or a committee.  Ordinance adopted by Cook County Board of Commissioners, which imposed a duty on all county officials including elected officers to cooperate with investigations conducted by Inspector General (IG) and to comply with subpoenas issued by IG as part of those investigations, is constitutional as applied to Assessor. Thus, Assessor must comply with subpoena issued by IG. (KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Tyler

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Tort Immunity Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (1st) 153502
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON

(Court opinion corrected 12/5/16.) Insurer filed subrogation action against City and others from theft by fraud and ultimate recovery of its insured's vehicle. Buyer paid insured for his vehicle using 2 cashier's checks which were later discovered to be counterfeit. Court properly dismissed insurer's complaint as it pertained to City, as City was immune from suit under Tort Immunity Act. Constructive bailment claim is based on "no contract at all", and thus insurer cannot use Act's exception for a municipality's liability for breach of contract. (NEVILLE and PIERCE, concurring.)

Salvi v. The Village of Lake Zurich

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Tort Immunity Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (2d) 150249
Decision Date: 
Monday, October 31, 2016
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
McLAREN

Plaintiff alleged that Village's renovation of a detention pond near office building on property Plaintiff owned caused pond to overflow during a heavy rain, flooding bottom floor of building. Plaintiff alleged that Village failed to follow Watershed Ordinance and was thus liable for damage to property when pond overflowed. Sections 2-103, 2-104, 2-106, and 3-105 of Tort Immunity Act provides no immunity to Village. In count alleging breach of contract, Plaintiff failed to plead her status as a 3rd-party beneficiary of easement agreement (signed by church, Village, and library), and thus court properly dismissed that count. However, court generally should give a plaintiff some opportunity to cure defects in complaint, and thus dismissal with prejudice is vacated. Court properly dismissed count for mandamus, as Village could not be compelled to perform official duties in regard to the pond, as it had only private, not official, duties to perform. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)