reply we ask that you speak up and this is loud as you can and this is not a microphone and it's allergy season so there's some difficulty and hearing so we would appreciate illinois you have been increasing its organization the parking deal at issue is structurally unconstitutional on his face because one it requires the city to use its police powers to enforce private contracts the meters and and two it sells or leases or consigns whatever word you wish the city's control over the public way and requires the city to compensate c p m for any exercise of its police powers those two things are what makes this deal unconstitutional illegal on its face of the court below up held direct taxpayer standing deny derivative standing eroni asli we say but it didn't really matter because the issue of standing once established allowed us to get to the merits which is what the court wanted to do second it dismissed our public purpose argument essentially because the tickets that were issued were for parking that had been previously illegal when prior to the the meters being transferred to c p m and then eventually the court granted summary judgment in the view that the limitations on the city's exercise of police of its police powers was not excessive on its face and could still be asserted in the future by some city administration if and only by the city corporation council if the impediment seem to become excessive in practice we will argue that the agreement is unconstitutional on its face and its real world after a sion does substantially impinge on the city's exercise of its reserve powers over the public way oh i'd like to reserve th for reply if i could the agreement imposes huge penalties first degree in the post huge penalties on the city's exercise of its reserve police powers and it does this for at least five different things which are just normal operating decisions that the city makes changes to the operating standards of the system permitting a competing parking facility to open if the city makes the legislative decision to reduce spines or penalties below ten times the parking meter rates or raise the number of tickets whether it's the city or the state who raises the number of tickets that are required before your car can be immobilized or before your driving privileges are suspended those are compensation  is part of that equation it determines every action that the city takes and that's the other part any action that the city takes which could have a material adverse effect on the fair market value of concession that's to be refuted so every all the manic decision to to reduce to make a loading zone some place or two to change the rates for parking in some lot or to do anything to pay in parking from one street to another everything that the aldermen would propose now has to be vetted not only for a cost benefit analysis is this a something we'd like to do be what will this cost us in terms of the city having to compensate c p o and see that through what can we afford to pay that and so very important and good decisions can be made because they're constrained by having to pay for the the exercise that mere exercise of routine police powers and in the original agreement it was costing on a regular anymore basis at least twenty million dollars every year this is what we are contract under the counter balance ten twenty million what that twenty million dollar cost make really me whatever that do that's just the true up specialist the day to day cost of having street cleaning and having meters out of service having streets out of service whatever that's just a day to day that's like maintenance and if all that was even paid was this twenty million dollars you'd say well seventy five times twenty million dollars is a billion and a half and so for one point six one point one six billion that the city got in the first place if all it did was pay back a million a billion and a half over seventy five years that would be a reasonable loan type deal but then you have to consider that c p m is also getting one hundred million dollars every year from the parking meter revenues so the fact of the matter is is it is a terrible deal everybody recognizes it's a terrible deal this argument this is only a legal you may consider it a city of chicago you call it the use of police power to enforce i have private contracts but can you not name other instances where this has already existed prior to this particular meeting there are only the answer is just as all know there are there are only three there are only six deals we think that have been done nationwide three of them were here one is the skyway which is a different type of operation one of them is the garages which is under challenge in a separate case and then there's the last red line the red line has lights the red light but the red light if the city wants to hire a firm to do a service for it that's ok city still controls the intersection it pay somebody to put up red lights and it elects the revenue from the city can hire the city can outsource buying a pencil rather than making it self there's nothing inherently wrong with the city hiring somebody to do something for it it is entirely different to sell the public way too good for the control of an outside entity who then has to be paid indianapolis park they call it park indy is the only deal that we know of that actually went through but that is different because that is a partnership it is structured so that on that on the first x dal a million dollars a month they miss the parking company gets like sixty percent and the city gets like thirty percent and after the crossover point they go forty sixty so the city is a partner in then deal no matter how good it gets and here this is not that this is not that way this is a deal which the city received payment for ones and c p m then has a cash flow which the city is outlook gated to protect this is fundamentally different this is the only deal that's been like this in every other city that has looked at it including new york were checked the doing this type of deal but c p m is the only one who the city gets the city is if macy's or marshall fields sold the parking lot of the parking lot from the city it would not be a it would not be within the power to say we're going to go we're going to use police parking wroth and an ordinance says no in fact it used to be used to be that you couldn't you couldn't if there was a two hour limit you to move every two hours the whole purpose back when is the parking system it was to keep things moving it was to get turtle c p m now controls it so that you can park there as long as you keep a c p m and now under the new mobility thing it's not in the record but it's certainly in the public domain what they do is now you can do it on your phone you can keep extending it as long as you keep paying as long as you keep paying c p m so that what the police do is really they issue tickets and the city must honor c p m more than five of them i believe you're driving privileges in illinois or suspended that's a deal that simply you don't get the other problem that they pose and what they really and what the city is what everybody on the other side is arguing is if you're right that this is an illegal deal if you're right the penalties are huge and the answer is that the contract if it is illegal wrong have it's penalty provisions in force it's possible that we might that i mean this is all premature but they've made that in their argument in their briefs they're saying well if you win we're going to get like ten billion dollars from the city that doesn't have the answer is that a verdict that an illegal contract is a fair way to have an issue but on an absolute basis penalties of that sort are not enforced against anybody let alone against the city and so if the city had to pay back the one point one six billion the rest that three hundred or seven million that c p m has already got half of that on the deal the city could issue a bond for know week and that would be a normal bond what we're talking about is something fundamentally different from every case that has approved a bond financing to do a public to great public facility of some sort bonds are a very limited financing there of a specific amount you borrowed i pathetically one point one six billion you paid back with an interest rate there are revenue protections to make sure that the money is paid back and not just diverted even in a revenue by on that is not a general obligation by the revenues from the facility that are being financed have to go to protect the payback to whatever extent is necessary those cases which are really all the cases that there are approved routine bound financing this something totally different this is a creature that has never been approved is not a minor extension and should not be allowed if unless you have any other questions i'd like to reserve wrestling time for about you to the rule that you don't you can cite and i'm published opinion but people seem to vary on that and so i would submit that for the court's consideration this is on the standing issue which basically says the taxpayers have standing to divided the issues for which we are primarily responsible first i will explain why plaintiff's home rule claim fails on the merits then i will use my remaining time to to explain why in any i will be happy to answer questions concerning in his shoes and from the moment that parking meters were first installed in chicago many decades ago the city in the exercise of its  and regulatory powers has frequently undertaken projects involving metered parking and some of those projects have resulted in reduced revenues from parking meters for example removing parking met from particular locations has resulted in really reduced revenue as has closing streets the parking for the period needed to make street repairs before the city entered into the concession agreement with c p m the incurred each of those revenue reductions itself and for just that reason the city aleck did not to undertake such projects in circumstances where the benefits would have been outweighed by the arm from the revenue reduction under the concession agreement c p m paid the city and as and as assumed other obligations in exchange for the revenue from parking meters for the term of the agreement but the agreement also specifies that the city retains all its police and regulatory powers so whenever the city decides to exercise those powers by undertaking a project that result in reduced revenue from parking meters that revenue reduction is incurred by c p s not the city for that reason section fourteen point three in article seven of the gree fourteen point three an article seven violate the home rule provision of the constitution because by requiring the city to compensate c p m for any such financial harm those provisions of the agreement share all the cities exercise of its police and regulatory powers to undertake the projects for the for the public's benefit but nothing in the case law that showing is the proper standard under the home rule provision and it plainly is not the proper standard if it were then throughout the many decades before the city and c p m entered into the agreement the city necessarily violated the home rule provision every time it was still from undertaking any been beneficial project to avoid incurring a reduction in metered parking revenue itself to suggest that the city violated the home rule provision in all of those circumstances would of course be of service or over point to challenge the section fourteen point three in article seven is a facial challenge which means that those provisions must be upheld unless pointed showed that they are invalid in every possible application but my disposal to satisfy that burden it is undisputed that under the agreement the city has in fact undertaken many projects that resulted in reductions in metered parking revenue as evidenced by the payments the city has made to c p m to compensate for such reductions and those payments mean of course that section fourteen point three in article seven have not chilled the city's exercise of its obesity regulatory powers in every possible application indeed plaintiffs a lack evidence that the city has refrained from undertaking even one project it would have undertaken but for section fourteen point three an article so as well as the public purpose provision but it is well established that without the riveted of taxpayers stand a taxpayer cannot bring suit on behalf of a governmental unit who she pays tax here point it's needed to rebid of taxpayer standing to bring suit on behalf of the city for a refund of the compensation payments that the city is made to c p m pursuing derivative actions but i just followed carefully dismissed all those counts and never sought to reinstate the latest therefore waived any argument that they had to riveted taxpayers than in any event the argument is city to any refund from c p m this is because whenever the city reef rains from undertaking a project that would have affected the meter parking system the city does not owe and does not  m compensation in connection with the proposed change and without payment to c p m there is no amount that could be refunded to the city by contrast when ever the city does wonder such a project and those paid compensation to c p m for resulting revenue reduction the city was not chilled from undertaking the project and best there was no violation of the home rule provision  liability therefore even on point if you release theory of liability there could never be a basis for an order requiring c p m to refund any of the compensation city has paid the other independent reason that the plaintiffs lack derivative taxpayer standing is that only the city's corporation counsel has the authority to litigate to protect the rights and interests of the city sections of both the cities and villages act and chicago's minister of municipal code specified that the city's corporation counsel wote shall appear for and protect the rights and interests of the city in all action suits and proceedings brought by or against it or any office or board or agreement or department provisions much less specific than those were construed by the supreme court in the lions and skip cheek cases and by this court in the hay case as for closing taxpayer derivative actions by state and county taxpayers the provisions pertaining to the city's corporation counsel should likewise be construed to foreclose that argument is waived because plaintiffs did not rely on section one dash five one on summary judgment in the circuit court or in their opening brief on appeal and any of that the city has own rule power and thus the city's corporation council ordinance controls over section one dash five dash one for the reasons that we set forth if your honor would like me to of this morning plainest evidence that this is a bad business deal you're hearing today unfortunately for plaintiffs by their own admission they filed a facial challenge based on the compensation provisions of unconstitutional and all applications destroyed ricky says just outlined to you a number of circumstances and it's in the record where the city in fact exercise their  powers and paid the true ok as he left south plaintiff in their trailers because that indicates in those circumstances there was nothing no lawful about the delegation of the exercise of police powers the city unfairly exercise because he fills not only to prove occasional challenge by showing you in all circumstances that disagreement is unconstitutional but he also feels to deal with the standard of chicken later by our supreme court in doctor in this state is articulate in the constitution and written by the supreme court indicates that is not the standard the standard is as warm as there is song hello benefit there is no violation of the constitution and i would direct this court to the decision of the friends of the purpose issued by the supreme court which involves as we all know soldier field where the soldiers feel financing was a challenge and the court there held a public will benefit  soldiers feel and the various may have a private benefit and that's ok under the law i would also direct you to the emperors riverboat case where the supreme court indicated that the horse racing industry was receiving some benefit from the taxing power that was chill of the expenditure that was challenge there and they said that was ok because if the horse racing industry failed people would be out of work so if the standard is not a big incentive for the sport the standard their direction or discretion are right there's about thing a record ever indicate as mr kristoff of like to suggest nothing to indicate that more than one point one five billion dollars is ever going to be paid by the city that's pure speculation on his part appropriate because the police power under the agreement was retained by the city of chicago eight tell us where the meters can be used for all they tell us what the rates to be we have no discretion there they have told troll of the streets and if they have an obligation to pay us celebrate a fine which is sure that their business transaction that c p m entered into in good faith with the city and was told that these were the forms of the deal the meters and not pay there be no revenue coming to the successful bitter and i'm sure thing that many people would not have paid as much or a bit at all but there not been an obligation of the city to at least police the streets but the question there is is that unconstitutional and we understand how it sweeten the deal if you will but the argument is that the answer is an improper use of police power to utilize that kind can't enter into a transaction with a perspective that all right take a billion dollars plus of their money and then say you know well we're going to turn our backs and do nothing to assist you in achieving anywhere near the revenue projections that the police power of the city of chicago under the contract they couldn't do that they don't have control of the street jarana that's a police power function that was withheld by the city chicago and i would suggest properly so we certainly don't want  challenge he must show that every part of this agreement the challenge is unconstitutional in every set of circumstances and backstops their case in its tracks because the fact that public benefits that need to be accrued order to meet the standards for the qualification standpoint there's nothing in the cases that says it must be x number percent or dollars but it talks about there must be some in this particular case if we take a step back the most immediate benefit is the city received one point one five billion dollars that would not be a minimal type of public benefit the city repaid received a revamp a box number one they must show because this was a case coming from summary judgment in their asking this court to reverse and the actual misuse of all the funds by and expenditure they don't meet that test the second and third test they don't even come close to meeting and victim in good faith and here the city of chicago we have an opinion of a major law firm saying it was a constitutional agreement it was proper and lawful or they act in good faith by posing decision says that we still come into play if this concession was overturned by some odd reason by this panel you determined it was wrong there would be an equitable argument the city's acknowledged that c p s money can't just kill the city chicago we get thrown out and   or mail thank you very much ok the the case law is very clear on public purpose stuck all contracts always confer a quite the benefit otherwise the private entity would not agree to the contract it's not surprising that the city's contract here conferred a private benefit on c p m they would have been to do the agreement if they if it did there's no magic to the to the fact that the the benefit here is the use of the city's police power there is no case law the head that says that the use of the police power is inappropriate whatever benefit the city confers whether it's police power or otherwise is a proper benefit here the pub the whole idea that they wish to say is you can't do derivatives in the camp in taxpayer standing no matter what you can get there they city has been is contractually obligated to defend the contract so if you accept all their arguments nobody would be able to challenge the contract which is what i believe their purposes but the fact is direct taxpayer stamp arises from an expenditure an illegal expenditure an expenditure under an illegal content we don't have to show that the taxpayers will have to immediately pay for that that's when mr sperling says it's very clear that's the trigger that it isn't true sorry if it just doesn't the test doesn't require that we get to wreck taxpayer standing to contest an expenditure that's going to be made we get to rid of standing to go after an expenditure that has been made to work cover we have both but we did this business about voluntarily dismissing we did it to come by the court the court said you've got direct taxpayer standing and i'm can and i convinced that if you get standing and it's illegal you'd be able to get the money back that's that was done when we were seeking an injunction against the city ending the money and he basically went to the merits and said i'm sure if you win you'll get it all back and if you don't they won't this idea that it need not be cost that the exercise of police powers need not be costless well that doesn't mean that every exercise can be charged you're going to put a toll on the exercise of every exercise of police powers that is a chilling effect their argument is well if they've ever expended the money that with that action wasn't chilled but there were others that were in fact right the beginning the city had to give back grant of i believe one hundred fifty million dollars from the federal government that it had applied for and received which is to cut down on the if you'll or traffic in the loop which was to encourage mass transit city had to give it back because it conflicted with the parking illinois constitution's designation of the state attorney general's the elusive representative of the state and the state's attorney as an exclusive representative of the county there are women over the meters when there was that other snowstorm that we've now forgotten about by now there is taxpayer standing to recover to pursue to prevent the expenditure direct and to recover derivative the mere statement that the city retains its police powers doesn't make it so when the city has to pay for its exercise every statement contract doesn't make it the doesn't make that the defining event when the facts of the rest of the facts of the contract are you have to pay to exercise it now it is one thing to say that the rates you know his disposal are so he can do whatever he wants rates if the city reduces the rates it's going to have to pay under the contract in fact the rates are set by the contract for the first four years in basically quite rippling them and then increasing them after that by the cost of living the rates are set by the contract and the city can not reduce the rates and the pen in the funds it defines for the parking ticket penalties they can't reduce those two best and ten percent to less than ten times parking rates without compensating enforcement is not it's not just as if we're worried about people being murdered by the parking meters they get specific and for  in force the city is required to honor see pm's tickets as if it were the city itself and to do to people who don't pay c p m treat them as people who should have their vehicles immobilized and the driving privileges suspended in fact if the state changes the number of tickets before you can have your driving privileges suspended increases that the city has to pay compensation for that by the police power need not be costless it can't be subjected to a toll charge either there's all these benefits the city got a revamp system the city could have paid thirty five million to thirty five million dollars that was the cost of putting rolling out the revamped system could have done that itself professor strong support we didn't oppose him i admit that he was only available to us like two days out of six months and we felt that his opinion on its face faults because he says this is state of the art this is the norm it's not if you look at the deals that he cites no record deal is like this one if you want an opinion that is an unpaid for honest  deals work in their legality look at the articles their site professor roy says this is professor rowing says this is the same thing the same justification can be made for leasing out the property tax system of the city and the income tax system of the state you sell those sell the cashflow and any change that you want to make there after you got to pay your way out of it you can not  the problem is not that there are little things that might be a benefit maybe maybe there are some little benefits here and there but the fact of the matter is you can't sell the public way you can't sell the public the public governmental regulatory function which is death when the thirty seconds shack the argument that an improper alter virus contract if there are equities involved ok i'll grant that and if this court finds that that transaction is illegal unconstitutional in some major faction factor opinion that generally is only a function of himself but that doesn't make it the law everybody's presumed to bow to know the law they were on notice that this deal was illegal when they read it this court and the court below will deal with that and equitable fashion for those reasons we asked that the court reversed the decision below and remand the case for further proceedings thank