from their board first of summary judgment in favor of the school district the village raises two issues which require this court to find that summary judgment was inappropriate first the written agreement between the partners entered into into ninety six is ambiguous and summary judgment is inappropriate as there are material issues of fact which must be resolved second that district a village passed an ordinance as well as e t f redevelopment plan the plan contains the goals the aspirations of the tiff it also includes language regarding cooperation with dollar mental entities within the district as well as a list of the projects which are expected to occur or are aspirational we will occur within that district just ten days later the village enters into an agreement with the gardeners cellphone with a high school district and that agreement deals with the use of athletic facilities that were owned by the school district at that time of the series were some tennis courts and a baseball motion to reconsider the court acknowledged that that finding was in error they found that there was no evidence in the record to support a finding of the funds had been turned over for twenty six years now when doing so they consider four affidavits filed by the village these affidavits dealt with the intent of the parties at the time the group was struck as well as the administration of the agreement and the affidavits involved a bill for current mare as well as previous mares and an outside that if attorney was engaged by the village to assist in the administration result so an affidavit filed by the district this affidavit contradicted the affidavit and the statements contained in the four affidavits from the village that's correct the trial judge's finding is that there was no ambiguity however is our position that in key makes it clear ruling that he's considered affidavits from the village and the affidavits go specifically to the parties intent and entering into the contract that there's no ambiguity with that's correct it's our position that he's considered for all evidence there must be some sort of ambiguity and if you're required you to resort to for all evidence to examine the parties intention got contrary affidavits this point summary judgment is wholly inappropriate there's a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved through discovery and therefore summary judgment at this point would be inappropriate  can be considered as to the ambiguity and furthermore although there are a there is that integration clause the statutory interpretation which all which i'll bring up next of the to fact in there's a reference to the agreement being  held within the laws of the state of illinois pursuant to the to fact requires different fining es of the capital fines i would like to briefly go over the actual license agreement with answer because i think it provides a good review of why the contract ambiguous as well as why funds must be spent on capital costs the first section of the license agreement has a number of recycles there's references within those recitals to both the tax increment allocation authority for such type of agreement if this were just merely a license references to the test fact intergovernmental cooperation wouldn't be necessary there's additional evidence showing that this is more than just a license payment for me a line mentioned before the payment is based on increment created throughout throughout the years every year a percentage of the increment created is returned to the district over the life of that fifth district the gardener of the village of gardener has turned over in excess of four point five million dollars the dispute over this last taxable year is nearly five hundred thousand dollars this is an exchange for the use of the athletic facilities merely as a license the ability to use these tennis courts the baseball field and there's no evidence in the record that these facilities were ever used you chose not to use the facilities that you get a right to use i believe it provides an inference that there might be some other restriction on the funds or the funds were paid for more than just a license agreement will w happened here this is a license agreement it's not a green and it's the grant money that has the restriction that it has to be used for capital  written agreement except and approves a portion of the taxing districts capital costs and then there's a restriction that's resulting from the redevelopment project if they can reimburse those those funds that were spent on capital costs it's our position that this applies is required to suspend those funds on redevelopment project costs here those have to be capital costs in the in the twenty six years of life that has the district ever meet an will improve it is our understanding and in the record i don't believe there's there's evidence as to the particular capital improvements that were provided the issue which which really cause dispute the school district turned over a budget as part of their invoice for the upcoming in a taxable year and on that invoice it broke out both with capital expenditures of those to funds as well as  expenditures for salaries salaries of the superintendent salaries of a janitor a technology person and payment of benefits there it was it was the villagers understanding throughout the agreement and that's reflected in the transferring funds to a texan district and providing them funds for their capital costs if you look at the the school district laws on section seventy four for c and that deals with the municipal powers  duties section of the school district has relied on that section to argue that the funds can be turned over as merely part of a license and that there are no restrictions on those fines but if you look to the section right before section b of that statute it into an agreement and this seems to cover both private as well as public and cities then there's no need for the definition of redevelopment project costs in that section would not be necessary to break out the individual  if you can merely rely on the municipal powers and duty sections of term funds over there's no restriction on and he funds they misspell he turns over to a tax and district to a developer or anyone they're making a grant be spent on non capital expenditures on salaries on flights whatever they may be if they're not going into hard costs that are going to extend within the tiff district young li would have to be invalidated as a matter of public policy and there would have to be some sort of agreement between the parties as to how all that matter would be handled going forward as far as transfer of funds have to remain yes you are there you have to resign i believe that's correct the contractor could be invalid at that point and or have to be the another meeting of the school district to figure out how they can be reimbursed for their capital costs but there is no but your honor make makes a good point there and extending that the tiff district which was which was required to extend it beyond its normal was its normal period as the village is a position that that in and honoring that contract in good faith that they're required to mr florey good morning it collects taxes which otherwise would have gone to the schools and other local governments for developmental purposes and for community improvement purposes as we should if you discuss the act allows for a twenty three year term which can be extended in has occurred  it requires legislative action followed by an awareness of the state legislature as to authorize the extension from twenty three to thirty five as you said over half of the fifth district funds come from the schools a mr rush into this court and was argued in the trial court that a separate provision exists to limit the use of the funds that the district receives however they will meet the word grant section fifteen which doesn't apply to village in the school by which the school would agree to give the village a license and in return for payments from the village over the period of the years of the tiff district exist there's also acquisition agreements under the tap there which is part of improving the community and developing a community these acquisition agreements are foresee and these acquisition agreements are a necessary part of development there not you can't react on limitations under three c and before you does it make sense if you think about if a bank gives you a mortgage were you i would own or sell you a piece of his or her land different than the bank with a property or who conveys an interest in its property to the bill again as we all agree is part of the overall to plan but just for recreational activities th received by the school here not should be not be limited to the limitations on a development agreement under under section three q it's a four c license agreement the contract is clear never stretch and statu thank you thank you stand all private individual to acquire an easement word acquire the property in fee simple whatever type of interest they want to acquire there is not a restriction there if you look to the definition section of redevelopment project costs we and that's why we're focused on section seven eight taxing districts capital costs section two takes care of any issue you have with the acquisition of of land or interests from a private person there would be we agreed there no restriction once a private individual receives a receives those funds from him as well any where there are when you're dealing with a tax and district and also like to point to to the to redevelopment plan which was briefly discussed as noted there's a number of sections which deal with e f let it facilities to be built to be valid to be developed and that's a particular word that that's important in this case doesn't talk about the acquisition of of athletic fields and facilities talks about development building more spending funds to do create hard assets can't blast us that were made in the district and improve the property no i believe the funds stayed well as far as the funds it's the villages position going forward that the funds that need to be spent specifically on the athletic fields and facilities that needed to be spent just on capital costs as long as they were consistent with the redevelopment plan in looking at that the villages position is that the capital costs can be anything falling under the hard assets whether that's computers you know redevelopment plan finally i want to point to one other issue one other portion of the to fact and that's the accounting and reporting section and that's really what what triggered some additional attention and two thousand and ten there was a an amendment to the to fact and it required some additional accounting and reporting on behalf of the village they were required to provide certifications have an outside individual look at  those and what they did is the they had to provide copies of the intergovernmental agreements that they have with any taxing district and certify that the cost and funds are being spent in accordance with the with the to fact it's our position that to this section shows clearly that there must be some sort of restriction on funds transfer to a tax and district and the next phase needs to be that they're spent on capital costs consistent with the redevelopment plan and reviewing that to that's what caused the village to to raise an issue as to the funds provided in the budget finally one piece of additional evidence that the school district  was providing and realized it was more than a license if this was merely a license they should have provided us with an invoice for the turnover of funds in this case they're providing a budget showing how the funds were spent it's a clear acknowledgement that there must have been some sort of restriction on the funds and the village had to approve the specific expenditure of the funds in this case to confirm that they were spent on capital costs and in accordance and furthering the the agreement itself just requires a turnover of funds and provides a certain time period where those funds are turned over it was correct that condition comes from the statute rather than from the expressed language of the agreement