The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Article 7, Chapter 65 ILCS 5/7-1-1 et seq., outlines the procedures for the incorporation of villages. A key aspect of this process involves the petition for incorporation, which must be signed by a specified number of legal voters residing within the proposed village limits. The statute requires that the petition be signed by at least 1/8 of the legal voters residing within the proposed village. If the proposed village has 500 or fewer inhabitants, the petition must be signed by at least 1/8 of the legal voters. For proposed villages with more than 500 inhabitants, the petition must be signed by at least 1/8 of the legal voters. The number of legal voters is determined by the most recent decennial census. For example, if a proposed village has 1,200 inhabitants according to the latest census, and it is determined that there are 800 legal voters within the proposed boundaries, then the petition would require \( \frac{1}{8} \times 800 = 100 \) signatures. This foundational requirement ensures a demonstrable level of community support before the incorporation process can advance to the election stage. The Illinois Municipal Code also details the content of the petition, including a description of the territory, the name of the proposed village, and the names of the petitioners. The subsequent steps involve a public hearing and a referendum vote, all governed by specific statutory provisions to ensure due process and the will of the electorate.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically regarding the powers of home rule units, grants significant autonomy. Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and its implementing statutes, like the Illinois Municipal Code, delineate these powers. Home rule municipalities can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to their government and affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax, license, and incur debt, unless expressly prohibited by a law of statewide concern. A law enacted by the General Assembly is a law of statewide concern if it is applicable for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. The question centers on a local ordinance that impacts zoning, a power traditionally considered a matter of local concern unless a statewide interest is clearly articulated and codified. The proposed ordinance in Springfield, a home rule municipality, would mandate a specific setback requirement for all new commercial developments that exceeds the minimum standards set by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for state highway access, but does not conflict with any specific statewide zoning law or IDOT regulation that expressly preempts local control over such detailed zoning matters. In Illinois, home rule units have broad authority, and a local ordinance is presumed valid unless it conflicts with a clearly expressed statewide policy or a specific statutory prohibition. The IDOT’s minimum standards for state highway access serve as a baseline, not necessarily an exhaustive regulation that preempts all local zoning decisions regarding setbacks, especially when those decisions are aimed at enhancing local community character or mitigating local traffic impacts not solely related to state highway access. Therefore, a Springfield ordinance imposing stricter local zoning setbacks, even if exceeding state minimums, would generally be permissible as an exercise of home rule powers related to local planning and development, provided it doesn’t directly contravene a specific state law of statewide concern that expressly limits such local action. The key is whether the state law is a prohibition or a clear statement of statewide concern that occupies the field. Without such a specific statewide prohibition or a clear declaration of statewide concern that preempts local zoning setbacks, the home rule unit’s authority prevails.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically concerning the powers of home rule units, grants significant authority to cities and villages in Illinois. Home rule units, as defined by Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, can exercise any power and perform any function relating to their government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to tax, to license, to regulate, and to zone. However, this power is not absolute. Section 6(f) of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution explicitly states that a home rule unit shall have only the powers that the General Assembly may provide by law. Furthermore, Section 6(h) of Article VII allows the General Assembly to restrict the power of home rule units by a three-fifths vote of each house. The Municipal Code, in turn, implements these constitutional provisions. For example, the Illinois Municipal Code outlines specific areas where local governments may act, and also identifies areas where state preemption exists. In this scenario, the village president’s action, while potentially beneficial for local economic development, attempts to impose a regulation that directly conflicts with a statewide licensing scheme established by the Illinois General Assembly. The Illinois General Assembly has enacted legislation that provides a comprehensive framework for the licensing and regulation of specific industries, such as cannabis dispensaries, through statewide agencies. When a local ordinance conflicts with a state statute that occupies the field or expressly preempts local regulation in a particular area, the state law generally prevails. The doctrine of state preemption ensures uniformity and prevents a patchwork of disparate local regulations that could hinder statewide commerce or public policy objectives. Therefore, the village’s ordinance would likely be deemed invalid as it infringes upon the state’s authority to regulate this specific industry uniformly across Illinois. The Illinois Municipal Code provides the framework for municipal powers, but these powers are always subject to the limitations and preemptions set by the state legislature, as guided by the Illinois Constitution.

No calculation is required for this question. The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to annexation, outlines the procedures and requirements for incorporating unincorporated territory into an existing municipality. When a petition for annexation is filed, the municipal clerk must, within a specified timeframe, present it to the corporate authorities. The corporate authorities then have the power to accept or reject the petition. The Municipal Code also details notice requirements and the potential for referenda depending on the circumstances of the annexation, such as whether it is initiated by petition or by ordinance. The core principle is that the municipality, through its elected officials, must formally act upon the annexation proposal. This action, whether acceptance or rejection, is a legislative decision. Therefore, the corporate authorities of the municipality are the body responsible for the ultimate decision on whether to proceed with the annexation of the described territory.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65, addresses the powers and duties of municipalities. Section 5/11-76-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code grants cities and villages the authority to regulate and control the construction of buildings and structures within their corporate limits. This power is crucial for ensuring public safety, health, and welfare, and it extends to establishing building codes, zoning ordinances, and other land-use regulations. When a municipality adopts a building code, it is exercising its police powers. The Illinois Municipal League often provides guidance on the adoption and enforcement of such codes. The specific language in the code allows for the establishment of regulations concerning the materials, construction methods, and design of buildings. This includes the ability to require permits for construction and to inspect work to ensure compliance. The authority to impose penalties for violations is also typically included within these regulatory powers. Therefore, the fundamental legal basis for a municipality’s ability to mandate specific construction materials and techniques for a new community center in Illinois stems from its inherent police powers as delegated by the state through the Illinois Municipal Code.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65, addresses the powers and duties of municipalities. When a municipality annexes territory, it assumes responsibility for the services previously provided by any township or road district within that annexed area. This transfer of responsibility is governed by statutory provisions that ensure continuity of essential public services. The Municipal Code outlines the process and the legal implications of such annexations. Specifically, Section 65 ILCS 5/7-1-2 details the transfer of certain township powers and responsibilities to municipalities upon annexation. This includes the responsibility for maintaining roads within the annexed territory that were previously under township jurisdiction. Therefore, a municipality must budget and plan for the maintenance of these roads, which may involve incorporating them into the municipal public works department’s operational plans and budget. This is a fundamental aspect of municipal law in Illinois, ensuring that newly annexed areas receive the same level of municipal services as existing incorporated areas. The question probes the understanding of how municipal powers and responsibilities expand upon annexation, specifically concerning infrastructure maintenance previously handled by townships.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65 ILCS 5, governs the powers and duties of municipalities. When a municipality annexes territory, it generally assumes responsibility for existing local improvements, such as roads and utilities, unless specific statutory provisions or annexation agreements dictate otherwise. The concept of “assumption of existing improvements” is central to the orderly expansion of municipal services and fiscal responsibility. The Illinois Municipal Code does not mandate that a municipality must compensate the annexing territory for the cost of improvements already made by that territory prior to annexation. Instead, upon annexation, the annexed territory becomes subject to the municipality’s ordinances and is eligible for municipal services. The municipality’s obligation is to maintain and provide services to the annexed area consistent with its treatment of other similarly situated areas within its corporate limits. This ensures equitable service provision and avoids creating a disincentive for annexation by imposing an undue financial burden on the annexing municipality for improvements that are now part of its infrastructure. Therefore, the municipality is not legally required to reimburse the prior entity for the cost of these improvements.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to the powers of municipalities, grants significant authority to home rule units. Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 establishes home rule powers, allowing these units to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to their government and affairs, including but not limited to the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. This broad grant of authority allows home rule municipalities to enact ordinances that might otherwise be preempted by state law, provided the ordinance does not directly conflict with a state statute. In this scenario, the village of Harmony Creek, being a home rule municipality, can enact an ordinance that imposes a local fee on certain commercial properties to fund infrastructure improvements, even if no specific state statute explicitly authorizes such a fee for this purpose. The key is that the ordinance must relate to the village’s government and affairs and not directly contradict or frustrate a clearly expressed state policy. The fee, in this context, serves a local purpose of funding infrastructure, which falls under the general welfare and governmental affairs of the municipality. Therefore, the home rule status is the critical factor enabling this action.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65 ILCS 5, governs the powers and duties of municipalities. Regarding the establishment of local improvement districts, Section 11-74.4-1 et seq. outlines the process for creating Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Projects and the associated procedures. This includes the requirement for a preliminary ordinance that must be adopted by the corporate authorities of the municipality. This ordinance is a critical step in initiating the process, as it formally declares the municipality’s intent to create a redevelopment project area and outlines the general scope of the proposed improvements. The subsequent steps involve detailed planning, public hearings, and a final ordinance. Without the preliminary ordinance, the legal foundation for the district’s establishment is not yet in place, making any further actions premature. Therefore, the preliminary ordinance is the foundational legal instrument.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to zoning and planning, grants significant authority to municipalities to regulate land use. When a proposed development conflicts with existing zoning ordinances, a municipality has several avenues to address it. A variance is a specific type of relief from zoning regulations that can be granted by a zoning board of appeals, typically when strict application of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. However, a variance is not a legislative act that changes the ordinance itself. Rezoning, on the other hand, is a legislative process where the municipality amends its zoning ordinance to change the classification of a particular parcel of land. This process involves public hearings and a vote by the governing body. Annexation is the process by which unincorporated territory is brought under the jurisdiction of a municipality, which can then apply its zoning ordinances. A conditional use permit allows a use that is not permitted by right in a zoning district but may be allowed if certain conditions are met, often to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Given that the developer is seeking to deviate from the established zoning classification for a new industrial park, the most appropriate mechanism for the municipality to consider, assuming the development meets specific criteria and doesn’t fundamentally alter the zoning plan, would be a rezoning of the affected parcel. This is a legislative decision that directly alters the zoning map. A variance would address a hardship from the current zoning, not a planned change of use. Annexation is irrelevant to changing the zoning of existing municipal territory. A conditional use permit is for uses that are permitted under specific conditions within a district, not for a complete change of classification. Therefore, rezoning is the most fitting legislative response to accommodate a new industrial park in an area previously zoned differently.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to the powers of municipalities, grants significant authority to home rule units. Section 5/1-1-2 of the Illinois Municipal Code defines a home rule municipality as one that has adopted or is operating under Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution. This constitutional provision grants home rule units the power to exercise any power and perform any function relating to its government and affairs, including, but not limited to, the power to tax, license, and transfer property. However, this power is not absolute and can be limited by state preemption, either explicitly stated in a statute or implied by the comprehensive nature of state regulation in a particular area. In this scenario, the Village of Oak Creek, as a home rule municipality, has the inherent authority to enact an ordinance imposing a local surcharge on utility services to fund public safety initiatives. The Illinois Municipal Code does not contain an explicit prohibition against such a surcharge, nor does the state’s regulation of utility rates and services demonstrate a comprehensive intent to preempt local authority in this specific manner. The state’s role in utility regulation typically focuses on rate setting, service standards, and infrastructure, rather than the imposition of local surcharges for specific municipal purposes like public safety. Therefore, the village’s ordinance is likely valid under its home rule powers.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically 65 ILCS 5/7-1-2, outlines the process for a municipality to annex contiguous territory. This process requires a written petition signed by all the owners of record of the land to be annexed. The petition must be filed with the municipal clerk. Following the filing, the corporate authorities must adopt an ordinance accepting the annexation. This ordinance is then published once in a newspaper published in the municipality, or if none exists, it is posted in three prominent places within the municipality. The annexation becomes effective upon the completion of this publication or posting. Therefore, for the village of Oakhaven to annex the unincorporated parcel owned by Ms. Anya Sharma, the crucial first step is obtaining Ms. Sharma’s signature on a petition, as she is the sole owner of record. Without this owner-initiated petition, the annexation process cannot legally commence under Illinois law.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically the provisions concerning the powers of home rule units, grants significant autonomy to municipalities with populations exceeding 25,000. Section 8 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, along with relevant statutory enactments like the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/), outlines these powers. Home rule units can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to their government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to tax, license, regulate, and zone. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to limitations, particularly when a municipality attempts to regulate matters that are of statewide concern or when the General Assembly has preempted the field. In this scenario, the village of Oak Creek, as a home rule unit, has the authority to enact ordinances that address local issues, such as the regulation of noise pollution. The question hinges on whether the village’s ordinance conflicts with a statewide regulatory scheme or usurps a power explicitly reserved for the state. Without specific information about a state law directly regulating the decibel levels of private outdoor concerts in residential areas in Illinois, the home rule village’s ordinance is likely valid as an exercise of its inherent power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. The Illinois Municipal Code empowers municipalities to adopt and enforce ordinances for the general welfare, which includes managing nuisances like excessive noise. The key legal test for invalidating a home rule ordinance is whether it conflicts with the Illinois Constitution or a statute, or if it impinges upon a matter of statewide concern where the state has clearly acted to preempt the field. In the absence of such a conflict or preemption, the local ordinance stands.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to municipal powers and zoning, dictates the authority of municipalities to regulate land use. When a municipality enacts a zoning ordinance, it is exercising its police power, which is the inherent authority of governments to enact laws and regulations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. This power is delegated to municipalities by the state. A zoning ordinance establishes districts within the municipality and prescribes regulations for the use of land, the height, area, and location of buildings and structures, and the density of population. The Illinois Municipal Code grants municipalities broad authority to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances, including the power to establish reasonable regulations for the location and use of any and all buildings and structures. This includes the ability to require permits for construction and to specify setback requirements, which are regulations that dictate how far a building must be from property lines or streets. These regulations are fundamental to orderly development and the protection of public interests. Therefore, a municipality’s ability to mandate that a new commercial structure be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the public street is a direct exercise of its zoning authority under the Illinois Municipal Code.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Article 11, Division 74, addresses the establishment and operation of Business Districts. Section 11-74-2 outlines the powers of a municipality to establish business districts and the permissible uses of funds generated. When a municipality designates an area as a business district, it can impose certain taxes or fees within that district, such as a retailers’ occupation tax or a hotel operators’ occupation tax, dedicated to the district’s purposes. These funds are statutorily designated for specific improvements or services that benefit the district, including but not limited to, public facilities, parking facilities, streetscape enhancements, and promotional activities. The law requires that the revenues collected be used exclusively for the purposes set forth in the ordinance establishing the district and the relevant provisions of the Municipal Code. Therefore, using funds from a business district for general municipal operations or services outside the defined business district boundaries, or for purposes not enumerated in the authorizing ordinance and state law, would constitute an improper diversion of these dedicated revenues. The core principle is that business district revenue is a special fund earmarked for the district’s revitalization and economic development.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Article 7 of the Illinois Municipal Code, addresses the establishment and powers of home rule municipalities. Home rule units, as defined by Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, possess broad powers to regulate for their protection, safety, welfare, and convenience, subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution and state law. When a municipality adopts home rule, it can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs, including the power to tax, license, and regulate. However, the state retains the authority to preempt certain areas of regulation. The question asks about the implications of a municipality adopting home rule in Illinois concerning its regulatory authority. The adoption of home rule grants a municipality the power to enact ordinances that are not specifically prohibited by the Illinois Constitution or by a state statute that specifically limits the exercise of that power by home rule units. This means a home rule municipality can regulate matters of local concern, even if the state has also legislated in that area, unless the state law explicitly overrides home rule authority for that specific subject matter. Therefore, the municipality’s regulatory authority is expanded to include any subject not preempted by state law.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65, outlines the powers and duties of municipal corporations. Section 5/11-76-1 addresses the authority of cities and villages to regulate the construction of buildings and structures. This includes the power to prescribe reasonable regulations and restrictions concerning the location, materials, and manner of construction of buildings. The core principle here is the police power of municipalities to protect public health, safety, and welfare. When a municipality enacts an ordinance requiring a specific type of fire-resistant material for all new commercial constructions within its corporate limits, it is exercising this police power. Such an ordinance is generally upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, such as reducing fire hazards and protecting lives and property. The question asks about the legal basis for such a regulation. The Illinois Municipal Code grants this authority. The Illinois Constitution, Article VII, Section 6, also provides for home rule powers, which generally include the power to exercise any function pertaining to local government and affairs, unless prohibited by a State law. However, the specific authority for building codes and regulations is often explicitly delegated through state statutes like the Municipal Code. Therefore, the primary legal foundation for a municipality’s ability to mandate specific building materials for fire safety is derived from the statutory powers granted by the Illinois General Assembly.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to the powers of municipalities, outlines the authority of city councils to enact ordinances. When a city council in Illinois adopts an ordinance, it must follow a prescribed process to ensure its validity and enforceability. This process typically involves introduction, public notice, a public hearing, and a vote by the council members. For an ordinance to become legally effective, it generally requires a majority vote of the members of the corporate authorities then holding office. In the context of a typical city council with a set number of aldermen, a majority vote means more than half of the total number of seats, regardless of whether all seats are currently filled. For instance, if a city council has 14 aldermen, a majority would be 8 votes (since \(14 / 2 = 7\), and 8 is the next whole number greater than 7). If a proposed ordinance receives exactly half the votes plus one of the total membership, it passes. If the mayor is a voting member and breaks a tie, their vote is counted towards the total. However, if the mayor is not a voting member, their signature or veto power comes into play after the council’s vote. The critical aspect for passage is achieving the required number of affirmative votes from the council members present and voting, or based on the total membership as defined by statute for certain actions. The Illinois Municipal Code does not mandate a supermajority for the passage of typical ordinances unless specifically stated for particular types of ordinances, such as those involving bond issuance or annexation. Therefore, the most common requirement for an ordinance to be adopted and become effective is a simple majority of the total number of elected officials on the council.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65, addresses the powers and duties of municipalities. Section 5/7-1-1 outlines the general powers, including the authority to adopt and enforce ordinances. When a municipality considers adopting an ordinance that affects private property rights or imposes new regulations on businesses, the process typically involves public notice and a hearing to ensure due process and community input. The Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA) also governs rulemaking for state agencies, but for municipal ordinances, the primary procedural requirements are found within the Municipal Code itself and potentially in local charters or home rule powers. A municipal ordinance regarding the placement of satellite dishes on private residences, while potentially impacting property use, falls under the municipality’s general police powers to regulate for public health, safety, and welfare. However, such regulations must be reasonable and not unduly burdensome or discriminatory. The process for adopting such an ordinance would involve introduction, a public hearing where affected parties can voice concerns, and a vote by the corporate authorities. The Illinois Municipal Code does not mandate a specific percentage of property owner consent for every ordinance, but rather emphasizes procedural fairness and the rational basis for the regulation. Therefore, the most appropriate initial step for a municipality seeking to implement such a regulation, balancing its authority with community impact, is to follow the established ordinance adoption procedures that include public notification and a hearing.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically the provisions concerning the powers of home rule municipalities, grants significant authority to cities with populations over 25,000 that have adopted a home rule charter. These municipalities can exercise powers and perform functions pertaining to their local government and affairs, including the power to tax, license, and regulate. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by the Illinois Constitution and state statutes. The Illinois Municipal Code, in Article 7, Section 6 of the Constitution, outlines that home rule units may exercise only those powers and perform only those functions which are otherwise authorized by law or which are not prohibited by the Constitution. The Illinois Municipal Code further clarifies that a municipality’s home rule powers do not extend to the imposition of taxes that are preempted by the state or that would unduly burden intergovernmental commerce. Specifically, the ability to regulate professions or occupations is often a point of contention, as the state retains significant authority in this area to ensure statewide uniformity and consumer protection. While a home rule municipality can enact ordinances for local public health, safety, and welfare, these ordinances cannot conflict with or undermine state law. The question hinges on whether a local ordinance attempting to create a new licensing framework for a profession already regulated by the state is permissible. In Illinois, the licensing and regulation of professions like dentistry, law, and medicine are primarily the domain of state agencies, such as the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. A home rule unit cannot simply create its own parallel licensing system for such professions if it interferes with or duplicates the state’s regulatory scheme, especially if the state law preempts the field or if the local ordinance is inconsistent with state law. The Illinois Municipal Code does not grant home rule units the authority to supersede state licensing requirements for professions that are extensively regulated at the state level. Therefore, an ordinance establishing a new licensing requirement for dentists, in addition to state licensure, would likely be deemed an invalid exercise of home rule authority due to state preemption and the potential for conflict with established state regulatory frameworks.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65 ILCS 5, governs the powers and duties of municipalities. Article 11, Division 40 addresses the establishment and operation of municipal public utilities. Section 11-40-1 permits cities and villages to own, operate, and maintain any public utility, including waterworks, whether within or without the corporate limits. The code also allows for the acquisition of such utilities. When a municipality decides to acquire an existing utility, the Illinois Municipal Code outlines procedures for this process. However, the question pertains to the initial establishment and operational authority, not acquisition. The authority to establish and operate a utility is inherent in the general powers granted to municipalities for the welfare of their citizens, provided it is exercised in accordance with statutory provisions and the Illinois Constitution. The Illinois Municipal League often provides guidance on these matters, emphasizing the broad home rule powers unless specifically limited by state law. The Illinois Municipal Code’s provisions on public utilities are a key source of this authority, allowing municipalities to provide essential services like water and sewer systems. The Public Utilities Act (220 ILCS 5) primarily regulates investor-owned utilities and their rates, but municipalities operating their own utilities are generally exempt from its direct rate-setting oversight, though they must still adhere to general safety and service standards. The Illinois Commerce Commission’s role is primarily with regulated utilities, not municipally owned ones, unless specific inter-jurisdictional issues arise. Therefore, the foundational authority for a municipality to establish and operate a water utility stems from the Illinois Municipal Code.

No calculation is required for this question as it tests understanding of statutory interpretation and local government powers in Illinois. The Illinois Municipal Code grants significant authority to municipalities to regulate local affairs, including zoning and land use, through the adoption of ordinances. The concept of “home rule” under the Illinois Constitution, particularly Article VII, Section 6, further expands these powers, allowing home rule units to exercise powers and functions not expressly prohibited by law or inconsistent with the Constitution. A municipal zoning ordinance, properly enacted and published according to statutory requirements, has the force of law within the municipality’s corporate limits. Therefore, a property owner seeking to deviate from an existing zoning classification must typically obtain a variance or amendment to the ordinance through a formal, legally prescribed process, which often involves public hearings and a decision by the municipal zoning board or governing body. Relying on informal assurances from a single building inspector, without a formal amendment or variance, would not legally override the established zoning ordinance. The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to municipal powers and zoning, underpins this authority.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 65, addresses the powers and duties of municipalities. Section 5/11-76-1 outlines the authority of a city council to regulate the construction of buildings and structures within its corporate limits for the preservation of public health, safety, and welfare. This includes the power to prescribe reasonable regulations concerning the materials used in construction, the thickness of walls, the construction of chimneys, and other aspects of structural integrity. The question asks about the primary legal basis for a village board in Illinois to enact an ordinance mandating specific fire-resistant materials in all new residential construction. This power is derived from the broad police powers granted to municipalities to protect their citizens. The Illinois Municipal Code vests this authority in the corporate authorities of each municipality. Therefore, the Illinois Municipal Code provides the foundational legal framework for such an ordinance. Other options are less direct or irrelevant. The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (IEPA) deals with environmental regulations, not building codes. The Illinois Open Meetings Act governs the transparency of governmental proceedings, not building material mandates. The Illinois Tort Immunity Act provides defenses for governmental entities against liability, which is not the basis for enacting a building code.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically the provisions governing home rule units, grants significant authority to municipalities that have adopted home rule status. Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 establishes home rule powers, allowing these municipalities to exercise powers and perform functions pertaining to their local government and affairs, including the power to tax, to license, to regulate, and to zone, unless expressly prohibited by law. The question asks about the extent of a home rule municipality’s authority to impose a new fee for a service not previously charged for, in the absence of specific state legislative authorization for that particular fee. Illinois law generally permits home rule units to exercise any power and perform any function relating to their government and affairs, which includes the ability to create new revenue sources through fees for services, provided such action is not preempted by state law. The General Assembly can limit home rule powers, but absent such a specific limitation, the presumption is in favor of home rule authority. Therefore, a home rule municipality can generally enact such a fee if it relates to a legitimate local government function and is not otherwise prohibited. The key is the broad grant of power to home rule units to manage their own affairs and generate revenue for local purposes.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions related to municipal powers and intergovernmental cooperation, allows for the establishment of joint municipal agreements. These agreements are a mechanism for municipalities to share resources, responsibilities, and costs for providing public services. The Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 ILCS 220/) provides the statutory framework for such arrangements, permitting units of local government to contract with each other for the joint performance of any function or activity that each unit is authorized to perform individually. This includes the development and operation of shared infrastructure like water treatment facilities or public safety dispatch centers. The key principle is that the agreement must be for a lawful purpose and within the statutory authority of each participating municipality. When a municipality proposes to enter into such an agreement, it must follow its own ordinances and the relevant state statutes. The process typically involves formal action by the municipal corporate authorities, such as a resolution or ordinance, to approve the agreement. The agreement itself will detail the scope of services, funding mechanisms, governance structure, and dispute resolution procedures. The legal basis for this lies in the broad home rule powers granted to municipalities in Illinois, as well as specific statutory authorizations for intergovernmental cooperation. The question probes the understanding of how municipalities in Illinois can legally collaborate on service provision, emphasizing the procedural and statutory requirements.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically the provisions governing the powers and duties of municipal officers, outlines the authority for a village president to appoint certain officials. While a village president can appoint a village attorney, this appointment is typically subject to confirmation by the village board of trustees. The Village President’s authority to appoint is not absolute and is often checked by the legislative body of the municipality. The Illinois Municipal Code does not grant the village president unilateral authority to appoint all municipal officers without any oversight or confirmation process. For instance, the appointment of a village clerk or a village treasurer, if not elected, would also likely involve the board of trustees. The specific powers of the village president are derived from state statute and are not inherent, meaning any appointment power must be explicitly granted or implied within the framework of the Illinois Municipal Code. Therefore, an appointment made solely by the village president without the requisite board confirmation would be invalid.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically provisions concerning the powers of home rule municipalities, grants broad authority to local governments to enact ordinances and regulations not specifically preempted by state or federal law. In this scenario, the Village of Oakhaven, as a home rule unit, possesses the inherent power to regulate local matters for the welfare of its residents. The state statute cited, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, establishes statewide environmental standards and regulations, but it does not explicitly prohibit or preempt a home rule municipality from enacting additional, more stringent local ordinances to address specific environmental concerns within its jurisdiction, such as noise pollution from commercial operations. The key principle is that home rule units can exercise powers and perform functions pertaining to their local government and affairs unless a state law specifically limits or prohibits that action. The state law in question sets a baseline but does not preclude local governments from imposing stricter local controls. Therefore, Oakhaven’s ordinance is a valid exercise of its home rule powers.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically 65 ILCS 5/11-76-1, outlines the procedures for the demolition of unsafe buildings. This statute grants municipalities the authority to order the repair or demolition of structures that are unsafe, unsanitary, or unfit for human occupancy. The process typically involves a notice to the owner, an opportunity for a hearing, and if the owner fails to comply, the municipality can proceed with demolition and assess the costs against the property. The question revolves around the statutory basis for a municipality’s power to compel the removal of a dilapidated structure. Understanding the specific Illinois statute that grants this power is crucial. The Illinois Municipal Code provides this framework, allowing local governments to address public health and safety concerns related to blighted properties. Other statutes, while potentially related to property or public works, do not directly grant the authority for mandatory demolition of unsafe buildings in the same specific manner as the Municipal Code. The Illinois Property Tax Code deals with taxation, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act focuses on environmental regulations, and the Illinois Township Code governs township administration, none of which are the primary statutory source for this specific municipal power.

No calculation is required for this question. This question tests the understanding of the Illinois Municipal Code regarding the process for a municipality to annex territory. Specifically, it focuses on the procedural requirements for involuntary annexation, which often involves petitioning by residents of the unincorporated area. The Illinois Municipal Code, particularly Chapter 65 ILCS, outlines the conditions and steps for annexation. For involuntary annexation to be valid, the petition must be signed by a requisite percentage of the property owners and voters within the territory, and the territory must meet specific contiguity requirements. Furthermore, the municipality must pass an ordinance approving the annexation, and there are notice requirements to affected parties and the county clerk. The question probes the critical element of the petition’s validity and the subsequent municipal action. Understanding the distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexation, and the specific statutory thresholds for each, is crucial. The Illinois Municipal Code mandates that for involuntary annexation, the petition must be signed by at least 51% of the electors residing in the territory and at least 51% of the owners of record of the land in the territory. The municipality then adopts an ordinance by a majority vote of its corporate authorities.

The Illinois Municipal Code, specifically the provisions governing the powers and duties of city councils and village boards, addresses the process for vacating public ways. When a petition is filed to vacate a public street or alley, the municipality must follow a prescribed procedure. This procedure typically involves notice to affected property owners, a public hearing, and a vote by the corporate authorities. The Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/11-61-1 et seq., outlines these requirements. For a vacation to be effective, the ordinance must be passed by a supermajority vote if there is substantial objection from property owners who would be directly deprived of access or whose property value would be diminished. However, if no substantial objection is raised, a simple majority vote is generally sufficient. The question posits a scenario where a petition is filed and a hearing is held, with one alderperson absent. The vote count is 7 in favor and 2 against, with 1 abstention. The total number of corporate authorities is 10 (7 present and voting + 1 absent + 1 abstention + 1 absent, assuming a 10-member body). A simple majority of those present and voting would be 5 votes. However, the statute often requires a majority of the *entire* corporate body, or a supermajority in cases of objection. In this specific scenario, 7 votes in favor out of 10 total members constitutes a majority of the entire corporate body. Without specific details on whether substantial objections were raised that would trigger a supermajority requirement under the Municipal Code, a simple majority of the entire corporate body is the default standard for passing an ordinance. Therefore, 7 votes out of a potential 10 is sufficient.