PRUDENTI, P.J.
The Legislature has exempted certain operators of underground facilities, including "municipalities," from contributing to the costs of operating a mandatory "one-call notification system," but the statute granting the exemption does not define the term "municipalities." The issue presented in this case is whether the plaintiff town improvement district is a "municipality" within the meaning of the statute, and thus exempt from the one-call notification system's membership fee. We conclude that the context in which the statutory term "municipalities" appears and the fundamental purpose served by the statute indicate that the plaintiff is among the entities that the Legislature intended to treat as "municipalities" for purposes of the fee exemption.
In 1974 the Legislature responded to an increasing incidence of excavation-related accidents by enacting article 36 of the General Business Law. To prevent the personal injuries and property damage that resulted when excavation equipment came into contact with underground facilities such as gas, electric, and water lines, General Business Law article 36 required every local governing body in New York to create a central registry containing the names of all operators of underground facilities within the governing body's geographical jurisdiction. Before commencing any excavation or demolition work, excavators were required to obtain the local central registry list, contact all operators on the list, and wait for each operator to mark its underground facilities or confirm the absence of any such facilities at the excavation site.
Subsequently, private utility companies developed one-call notification systems, which allowed excavators to obtain a mark-out of all of the participating operators' underground cables, pipes, and other facilities located at the site of a proposed excavation by making a single telephone call. Four such notification systems (eventually consolidated into two) were created in New York. Each one-call notification system is a not-for-profit corporation, which collects membership fees from its participating operators.
In 1994 the Legislature amended General Business Law article 36 to eliminate the central registry requirement, and instead mandate that every operator of underground facilities "participate in and be responsible for the administration of a one-call notification system" (General Business Law § 761). Article 36 provides that the costs of operating the one-call notification system are to be borne by its members, "with the exception of municipalities and authorities that operate underground facilities and any operator of underground facilities that provides water service to less than four thousand customers" (General Business Law § 761).
The plaintiff, Jericho Water District (hereinafter JWD), is a town improvement district with independently elected commissioners, which operates underground water facilities in the Town of Oyster Bay. JWD applied for membership in the defendant One Call Users Council, Inc., also known as New York City Long Island One Call/Dig Safely, Inc., a one-call notification system administered by the defendant One Call Systems, Inc., and sought an exemption from the system's membership fee, as a "municipality," pursuant to General Business Law § 761 (3). The defendants took the position that JWD was not entitled to participate in the one-call notification system without paying a membership fee.
JWD commenced this action for a judgment declaring that it is a "municipality" within the meaning of General Business Law § 761 (3) and, therefore, exempt from contributing to the costs of the one-call notification system. The Supreme Court denied JWD's motion for summary judgment and, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for summary judgment, determining that JWD was not a "municipality" within the meaning of General Business Law § 761 (3) and, therefore, not entitled to an exemption from the membership fee. JWD appeals.
The term "municipalities" is not defined in General Business Law § 761, and no New York statute contains a universally applicable definition of that term. The term "municipality" appears in dozens of statutes, and many of those statutes contain their own definition of the term. While some statutes limit the definition of "municipality" to counties, cities, towns, and villages ( see e.g. ECL 15-1301; General Business Law § 780; General City Law § 20-g [a]; General Municipal Law § 239-h; Town Law § 284 [a]; see also Executive Law § 155-a [for purposes of Executive Law art 6-C, "`(m)unicipalities' shall mean municipal corporations"]), other statutes define the term much more broadly. Indeed, some statutes expressly include town improvement districts in their definition of "municipality" ( see e.g. ECL 17-1903 [d]; 51-0101 [6]; General Municipal Law § 77-b [a]; PRHPL 1.03; Public Authorities Law § 1115-a; Public Health Law § 1160). The definition of the term varies widely from statute to statute, depending on the purpose served by the legislation. There are statutes defining "municipality" to include such diverse entities as fire districts ( see e.g. County Law § 227), public libraries ( see e.g. General Municipal Law § 77-b [a]), boards of cooperative educational services ( see e.g. Energy Law § 9-102), Indian nations or tribes ( see e.g. Public Health Law § 1160), and even public authorities ( see e.g. County Law § 227; Public Health Law § 1160).
In determining that JWD is not a "municipality" for purposes of the fee exemption, the Supreme Court relied on General Construction Law § 66 (2), which defines "municipal corporation" as including "a county, city, town, village and school district." The terms "municipalities" and "municipal corporation[s]," however, are not necessarily interchangeable. It is not appropriate to look to the definition of "municipal corporation" (appearing in an article of the General Construction Law entitled "Classification of Corporations and Definitions") to discern the meaning of the term "municipalities," while disregarding the numerous New York statutes that define "municipality."
As illustrated by the examples cited above, the term "municipality," for purposes of any given statute, may include town improvement districts, or it may not. Our dissenting colleague reasons that JWD is not a "municipality" within the meaning of General Business Law § 761 (3) because the Legislature did not include in that statute, as it did in certain other statutes, a definition of "municipalities" that explicitly includes town improvement districts. The difficulty with that approach is that it appears to indulge a presumption that the term "municipalities" does not include town improvement districts. In our view, given the many different definitions of the term that appear in the statutes of this State, no such presumption is warranted. The dissent's assertion that the adoption of a more expansive definition of "municipalities" (one which includes town improvement districts) is better left for consideration by the Legislature and its lawmaking powers itself reflects a choice to assign a specific meaning to the term "municipalities" (one which does not include town improvement districts) — merely one possible meaning among the many that the Legislature has adopted.
In exercising its lawmaking powers, the Legislature used the term "municipalities" in General Business Law § 761 (3) without defining it. Where such an ambiguity exists in a statute, it becomes this Court's duty to construe the statute, as best it can, to effectuate the Legislature's intent ( see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 92 [a]; Matter of Tompkins County Support Collection Unit v Chamberlin, 99 NY2d 328, 335 ["The primary goal of the court in interpreting a statute is to determine and implement the Legislature's intent"]). Without a statutory definition of the term "municipalities" as specifically used in General Business Law § 761 (3), or a universally applicable statutory definition of that term, the only interpretive guideposts available to this Court are the context in which the term appears, the legislative history of the statute, and the Legislature's underlying purpose in enacting the statute ( see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 96, 98 [a]; §§ 124, 235; Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 463-464; Matter of Albano v Kirby, 36 NY2d 526, 529-531).
The legislative history of General Business Law § 761 reveals only that the fee exemption was designed "[t]o facilitate the participation [in the one-call notification system] of municipalities, including New York City, that operate water, sewer and traffic control systems and of small water companies with limited resources" (Mem of Assembly Rules Comm, L 1994, ch 685, 1994 NY Legis Ann, at 501). Of course, the fact that the Legislature understood the term "municipalities" to include New York City does not shed any light on the issue of whether that term also includes town improvement districts. The above-quoted statement does, however, indicate that the fee exemption was viewed as "facilitat[ing] the participation" of, inter alia, small entities with "limited resources," which supports the proposition that General Business Law § 761 (3) was designed to place the burden of funding the one-call notification system upon entities with ample resources.
Thus, it is clear from the text and legislative history of General Business Law § 761 (3) that the statute's basic objective is to exempt certain entities — "municipalities," "authorities," and small private water companies — from the obligation of financing the one-call notification system. What those entities have in common is their relatively limited resources, and the defendants do not deny that JWD shares that attribute. The characteristics that differentiate a water district from a city or town are simply not relevant in this context. What really matters is that JWD is a public entity. It would be incongruous for the Legislature to require a governmental entity like JWD to pay the one-call notification system membership fee, while granting an exemption from the fee requirement, not only to other governmental entities, but also to authorities, which are quasi-governmental entities ( see Matter of Rogers v New York City Tr. Auth., 89 NY2d 692, 699; MacFarland-Breakell Bldg. Corp. v New York State Thruway Auth., 104 AD2d 139, 141). The statute as construed by the Supreme Court and the dissent would place JWD in the same category as large monopolies and other private, profit-making entities, and not in the same category as counties, cities, towns, villages, authorities, and small companies that operate underground water facilities. The Legislature had no reason to contrive such an odd pattern. In the absence of a statutory definition of the term "municipalities," we must avoid ascribing a meaning to that term that is inconsistent with the statute's underlying purpose and would produce unreasonable results ( see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 96, 143).
Our dissenting colleague credits the defendants' argument that our interpretation of the statute will result in a "reallocation" of the costs of operating the one-call notification system from the taxpayers served by JWD to the ratepayers served by private utility companies. Aside from the fact that such an allocation of costs is a product of the Legislature's intent as we understand it, we are not convinced by the defendants' submissions on this issue that the utility bills of residents not served by JWD would increase by more than a de minimis amount.
In response to JWD's argument that it is an independent legal entity, the defendants cite cases which, to some extent, support the proposition that JWD is subordinate to the Town of Oyster Bay, and not a "full-blown independent governmental unit" with a separate legal existence from the Town ( Greater Poughkeepsie Lib. Dist. v Town of Poughkeepsie, 81 NY2d 574, 582; see Kenwell v Lee, 261 NY 113; Raffone v Town of Islip, 85 AD2d 597; Belinson v Sewer Dist. No. 16 of Town of Amherst, 65 AD2d 912; Tom Sawyer Motor Inns v Chemung County Sewer Dist. No. 1, 33 AD2d 720). It does not follow, however, that JWD's alleged subordinate status subjects it to the payment of the one-call notification system membership fee. The pertinent issue is not whether JWD has an existence independent of the Town's, but simply whether JWD is a "municipalit[y] . . . that operate[s] underground facilities," within the meaning of General Business Law § 761 (3).
Admittedly, the Court of Appeals has stated, in a different context, that "[w]hile a water district, for the special objects of certain statutes, has been included as a matter of convenient reference within the terms `municipal corporation' or `municipality', it is essentially and only `a special administrative area'" ( Kenwell v Lee, supra at 117). It appears, however, that General Business Law § 761 (3) is indeed one of those statutes in which the Legislature has used the term "municipalities," as a matter of convenient reference, to mean all governmental entities, including town improvement districts. Rather than attempting to identify every kind of governmental entity "that operate[s] underground facilities," the Legislature used the term "municipalities," in a generic sense, to refer to all governmental entities that operate underground facilities.
For the foregoing reasons, JWD is entitled to a judgment declaring that it is a "municipality" for purposes of General Business Law § 761 (3) and, therefore, exempt from the one-call notification system's fee requirement. Accordingly, the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the motion is granted, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is a "municipality" within the meaning of General Business Law § 761 (3) and, therefore, exempt from contributing to the costs of operating the one-call notification system.