filed separately with the comptroller in response to the at least motion for summary judgment is to come to the court unit who are finding that due to the availability of financial information contained within mature ial factions dispute as to whether the reports filed were accurate the trial court ruled otherwise happily operates under the statutory city manager form of government which is court may  hear them accurately blatantly disregarding the duties of the dictat never sought to correct recognize rule of law is that equitable remedies should be denied where there is an adequate room of the law where there is not even if there were an equitable accounting made order were the failure holds that information out requires it to be set forth in the staff format that makes it very easy for a member of the public or anyone to understand the financial activity is taking place within the fund by the city were in violation of the temp act you prevail let's assume you prevail what happens next so the end result of prevailing would be a determination that there was a substantial surplus and then what that money benefit to you of that result my client's a taxpayer for both the city and for the eleven overlapping districts so the money that was deprived from the overlapping districts would reduce its need to levy additional taxes in the future so there is a property tax savings for my client as a future tax a correct there's no indication that the taxes were higher because to i mean we don't know that but axing bodies did what they did in the t formula siphoned off some of those to be used for develop the the tax levy process rahner calls for a taxing body to pass a levy requesting that the county clerk extend a fixed sum of money on their behalf and the rate that each individual property owner pays is dependant on the equalized assessed value of property subject to that rate the tip increment is removed from the tax base but what i'm saying is thousand and ten was a tax levy that should not have been extended so that was extra money at the city got that it should not have gotten but before that everything was ok that's record ok so with regard to  three there there's a two part assessment regarding to arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff appellant takes which is that the city improperly administered the test funded with regard to its actions at the end of two whether that change was self and forcing whether that applied retroactively resistant to the streets or not a review of the entirety of the amendments made by that public ac highlight the process that city would have had to follow if it desired to avail itself of the opportunity to extend the estimated days of completion afforded to it and in order to do so the city was required to adopt a municipal ordinance  through less formalities than what it otherwise would have to follow to amend the jeffrey about plan but it did have to pass an ordinance in order to change the estimated day to completion the parties agree that the city never did that so it's  we would have to see districts that would last infinitely until a city or village or government body decided they wanted to include their fifth district but it says estimated date of completion not date of completion it does say asked me to day to completion your hon forever as i explained in the discussion of the tax levy process the fifth district well for ever is less than two weeks and the forever is larger or two weeks is less than forever sidemen that's not what we're talking about here well it's a slippery slope if if two weeks is ok because it's an estimated date my argument would be that language would support five years or year or what that's rather less compelling however than one that still exists or that the there is certainly a gradient difference between two weeks increment so if the test district were to be allowed to add to exist infinitely it would be depriving other taxing bodies of their ability to tax at any moment but the action took place within the confines i should say prior to the the city adopted its tax levy which often granted the county clerk to collect the taxes we take issue with which were received in two thousand and ten so the adoption of the tax levy took place after the expiration date yes from as well as the twenty four years ago gardner versus have a star in a national transportation corporation to hear what application like the quoted to you trial court should not permit litigants to stand mute lose a potion and then frantically gather was we feel was the twenty first in the relevant action by the city occurred after that day namely december twenty eighth was a bit dated the two actions when considering the city's position and whether the city had the authority to act after the estimated needed completion one argument that's extended on on the city's behalf is the idea that there isn't a probation in the act express only stating against doing so working both off the idea that you have need a completion  city's argument with regard to some of these issues of statutory interpretation the city asserts a waiver argument suggesting that some of the authorities raised in the grief were not adequately brought before the trial crux the principal issue before the trial court with regard to count three was a lack of authority on the city's behalf to undertake the action it did there were arguments made and i've cited them in my brief as the instances where it's referred to on a fraction of the statute without being able to consider the entirety of the statute would lead to other observers all that's particularly with regard to language requiring an ordinance be adopted by the city in order to extend the estimated date of completion of  if the city is going to terminate the tift district that year and the courts conclusion or contention was that the november first date in the notice would be meaningless if the estimated date of completion was the actual  rather different term than the estimated completion date would certainly doesn't speak of a prohibition of going so what the day it absolutely is is certainly different language that that was used that december twenty fifth the word estimated not been present that still could have been terminated sooner that might could not i mean there's the wall require that it must go that long my school district gets less money from its levy because a portion is sliced off the top to go to tip is that correct very slight variation on that your honor if your school district levied one hundred thousand dollars that the rate calculated to collect that hundred thousand dollars wouldn't consider the increment so if your school district taxed at the same rate every year it would receive last money ok the levy asked for a fixed sum of some of funds so what would happen to get that big sum of funds the rate would have to go up in order to klak that because the extra value that is the increment is dollars in value that was generated after that the district was created would it then be correct to say that school parks sanitary fire districts are going to get the same amount on a yearly basis that they ask for because what they ask for takes into account that a certain amount is taken off the top or tip so while they make an adjustment to account for the fact that you're taking  money from so long as they have sufficient tax base and sufficient room underneath their maximum rates they would be able to do so the statute sets maximum rates for certain tax and bodies so if they were added near their maximum rate they may not be able to make up the difference by increasing the rate but what i want to get educated about is it seems to me and i have no quarrel with the individual tax payer complaining about this but it seems to me as if the taxing bodies are the ones that stand there's the potential for them to lose revenue or tax dollars because to their friends they're the ones that are going to get the refund that's right and it's speculative in a way as to whether or not their future levies w take into account the refunds that they receive you know your share your taxpayer your client could end up paying more and you know basis wholly apart from all or any refunds given to the taxi by the local paper right emotion because this wasn't a jury case section two dash twelve o three would be the section applies to a freshman motion and that says it has to be with thirty days or if you receive an extension within thirty days it must be april twenty ninth order was entered there were no other remaining causes of action issue so it became a final order this is further supported by the case of bird versus allied security and that case after a motion for s and then it took the motion for leave under advisement it did not roll on the motion for a leave until november twenty first which was over a month after the order on the motion to reconsider it and then the pellets in a file and so on five days later there the  e court found that there was no appellate jurisdiction because the motion relieved with matter acted against the verdict and therefore it was supposed to have been within the thirty days of the motion to reconsider order the various cases relied upon by  hear three different motions were filed with respect to summary judgment as to count three all the issues however boil down to two issues and those issues are whether it is material genuine issues of material fact existed projects in november two thousand and nine and then approved a number of contracts on december twenty eighth two thousand and nine the final receive a fair amount of taxes wasn't two thousand and paid those final projects  is closed as after only a series of facts therefore so it's referred to after the final project costs are paid after a surplus is distributed after records and books are closed then that's when the  obligations cannot be after that may be due to completion so how is your position basically that you can see that the city did not follow the statutory language and extending the deadline of the two but by the plain language as your einar indicated there is nothing and the fact that says it's anything more than an estimated date there is nothing that prohibits redevelopment project cost from being paid after that day and that's not going to have it's receiving medical taxes after silent on that issue or your honor we reach a point where it would be unreasonable i if the city took no action to change its redevelopment play on or or even speak to it but just kept doing what planing for redevelopment letting people know what's going on right and each year there is less public joint review board and each year after the trip reports are filed the joint recruit review board is levee and then the last of the redevelopment project costs were paid during that time as we indicated and i believe the only money that may still remain in the test fund is money that was being held back simply to cover the cost of living wages ok you lose what the right counting is not an absolute right it is one that should only be accorded under a akobo principles as well as it will not be order if the circumstances are such just made the accounting unnecessary or improper  state a cause of action for an accounting you first must alleged there is an absence of an adequate remedy of walk and then at least one of the following is either a breach of the judiciary duty a need for discovery fraud or the existence of mutual court had ordered various amounts of discovery and there they concluded that much of the items that the plaintiff had looked for was available under the discovery provisions of it of a practice act and that you shouldn't have to sift through and transpose and compare and look at a lot of different things i think he said there ought to be something that simple and transparent for cats poor or anybody to look at that you didn't do the city didn't do that let's say the information is basically available if you broke with that is do you c that there could have been different things done by the city to provide clarity and transparency or do you just say well this is the way it's done and you can find the information if you really look well at it there is a test report that's filed with the illinois state freeport he used non final numbers he used numbers that had not yet been audited and had not yet been up to date so some of those numbers because they weren't the final equitable accounting because they counting solely deals with the numbers and in reviewing the various the kaffirs they're quite clear they provide beginning balance as they provide a year and balances and those are audited figures establish an adequate a lack of an adequate remedy of why they still needed to provide one of the third item or one of the four items which is a breach of fiduciary duty fraud need for discovery and they simply just cannot fiduciary duty richard pryor's duty breach damages they have yet to establish what those damages are that is related to those to reports with respect to fry one would have to stuff support your position is that correct and that's correct whatever you call it the problem is the additional stuff wasn't presented the first time why know the issue the point that i want to address to the court and a rhetorical question why did the city not amend its original ordinance which would have then allowed it to do it clearly do what they did the statute is not clear what is clear is the law and in in case his sist most importantly village when there's any doubt with regard to the power of a unit of government is to be resolved against the action to be taken by the uni role goes back over one hundred years judge and it's equally or probably more applicable work talking about tax issues where the rules are strict instruction with regard to the jurisdiction jurisdiction is clearly with the court with regard to that matter that yeah police should have just been silent to do that issue what he did was respond incidentally there are make that a final thought the answer that