accept it also concerns the application of the local government top a minute and issues concerning the conduct of the trial jurisdictions predicated on the supreme court rules to real one and three of three in order  indicates the city will pay the half of these estate residential development a proportionate share of the cost of maintaining such wet basins and corresponding landscape areas and  number of other storm water detention system and the last line the city of cambridge shall enter into an agreement which shall address the procedures for the city to pay its fair and reasonable share these maintenance items as described below in section i'm going onto the language of section nine again these areas referring to physical areas the exact areas to be identified by the parties when the quote sharing agreement is saw the problem and mr cooper made a determination that all would be paid but that he would not tell di our age that in fact these we're being made it's a combination of all that was hidden from the was the corporation counsel and in those letters they couldn't even agree on what can or mores were correct in court because mr poole made a decision to make a painting to hide his real intentions other person city when that was done then a story was made up that these were included but in no time prior to two thousand and five was there ever a mention in the truck of the people of the city board in reviewing obligation that diarra and now actually the homeowners association a successor took up some other way or freeze would you rather they did not agree at the motion for summary judgment thousand cinephile and finds out that the building was just about complete and the maximize e a p has been realized then only it is there are complaining about the categories prior to that there was a single email asking whether or not the city general the the common areas that benefited the entire city stronger detention especially those detention funds that were strippers the entire city or is benefited from does the plaintiff presence or the of course that they build up and do they do it to their detriment yes by two thousand and five they've encouraged fences they created a homeowner's association which passes all purpose these items there is not a clubhouse there are not common walls this is a subdivision in some substantial portion then you would be a brilliant part of the opposite which would be enough to build a party and you wouldn't qualify in this circumstance it's especially important to get to know that this was a card for the case and that until we were on claiming that the constitutional prohibition of using public funds for a private purpose would have invalidated the contract completely so far from agreeing at the beginning of their defense and denials to new until the trial began proceedings fuses and i believe that was the case in these circumstances and again the beginning of the case the question of whether or not there was a dispute became prominen substance because the definition of a vendor is one who vendors or sells that just because you're identified on a form doesn't make you a vendor ok mr smith brought up the improper analysis to the judge  issue with regard to the fraud as judge also said this was not fraud it was a legitimate dispute between the parties i need to point out the court the desperation the council has to try to make this a fraud case in their complaint seventy five categories the argument is now mr computer deciding before the next it was entered into that they were only going to pay two years and that they were going to pay nothing yet that mr computer had nothing to do with the