ILCS » Chapter 70 · Act 705
Illinois Compiled Statutes

70 ILCS 705/1.02 (2026)

When an election is held to organize a fire protection district and the proposition fails, and the proposed district is wholly included in, or is coterminous with, a municipality, the cost of conducting the election shall be paid by the municipality

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(70 ILCS 705/1.02) (from Ch. 127 1/2, par. 21b)
    Sec. 1.02. When an election is held to organize a fire protection district and the proposition fails, and the proposed district is wholly included in, or is coterminous with, a municipality, the cost of conducting the election shall be paid by the municipality. Where the proposed fire protection district being voted upon in an election does not fall entirely within one municipality and the proposition fails, the cost of conducting the election shall be paid by the county, and where the district includes territory in more than one county and the proposition fails, such costs shall be apportioned between or among the counties according to the number of precincts within each county which lie in the proposed district. Where the proposition prevails, the fire protection district shall pay the cost of the election. The court shall assess the cost of conducting the election and shall submit a bill for payment to such fire protection district, municipality, county, or counties.
(Source: P.A. 80-314.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2005 · leading case: Wauconda Fire Prot. Dist. v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP, 828 N.E.2d 216 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wauconda Fire Prot. Dist. v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP, 828 N.E.2d 216 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “, 70 ILCS 705/1.02 (West 2002) (addressing apportionment between municipalities and counties of the costs of elections to organize fire protection districts); 70 ILCS 705/11e (West 2002) (distinguishing between county and municipal address number systems for fire protection…”
Wauconda Fire Prot. Dist. v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP, 797 N.E.2d 1130 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 70 ILCS 705/1.02 (West 2002) (distinguishing boundaries for cost-of-election purposes); 70 ILCS 705/11(e) (West 2002) (stating that address number system of fire protection district may not supercede any county or municipal numbering system).”
Wauconda Fire Prot. Dist. v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP (Ill. 2005). “, 70 ILCS 705/1.02 (West 2002) (addressing apportionment between municipalities and counties of the costs of elections to organize fire protection districts); 70 ILCS 705/11e (West 2002) (distinguishing between county and municipal address number systems for fire protection…”
The Wauconda Fire Prot. Dist. v. Stonewall Orchards, LLP (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “See 70 ILCS 705/1.02 (West 2002) (distinguishing boundaries for cost-of-election purposes); 70 ILCS 705/11(e) (West 2002) (stating that address number system of fire protection district may not supercede any county or municipal numbering system).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.