sections two thirteen and two fourteen of the property tax extension limitation establishes that the only way the auburn district can remove the tax limitations that were imposed by referendum through another referendum annexation of territory in another county is not a basis for removing tell and to the extent the court finds a statutory scheme to be ambiguous it should scenario was not discussed in the statute that it did not want to issue a formal but it is always been the department's view that section two fourteen is operative section because the situation starting before even talking about deferring to the department's interpretation you don't even need to to get to that point because the the plain language of statute is all the court has to look at the old game is a bit complicated argument is simple section two thirteen covering the initial invasion of tax limitations on a taxing district through a referendum it does not provide for a later reevaluation or remove all of patel because of a change in the district circumstance rather the only way to remove limitations from a district that became subject to the law under section two thirteen is for the voters to rescind pursuant to a revocation referendum under section two fourteen well i don't think it's all that clear and i don't t referendum what the district the district is the same district that has always existed and that district at the time was only in s annexation of a small amount of territory mongomery county it's not it's not a trigger for reevaluating that the citizens of montgomery county that portion with annexed onto a district that was subject to patel and that's the end of the matter they say there is no provision for reevaluating whether that district or main subject to tell because of an exemption of territory if there were if  this district had existed as a multi county district in the one nine hundred ninety six that would be a different situation but the operative moment that determine whether to apply tell is the initial imposition of montgomery county takes those conditions as they were when the an exception happened and which record that comes from section two fourteen which says specifically in looking at  defines a taxing district for purposes of section two fourteen to mean any non home rule taxing district that became subject to this law under section eighteen dash two thirteen of this law so here under the plain language you have a district that became subject to patel under section two thirteen there's no dispute about that apply is that you have a district that became subject to section two thirteen pursuant to referendum and that's what we have here there is there is no there is no statement in section two thirteen or section two fourteen that if the district changes foundries we're going to be a value weight it status what it says is if you have an existing district that became subject to the law the only way you can remove patel is through the revocation referendum and so you would have a a different situation if a new district were created today if the regional board had said we're going to d over district and we're dissolving the diversion district and more creating an entirely new district that would be a different situation because then you wouldn't have a district that became subject to the law under section two thirteen and under what circumstances would we have to be a massive then exception i don't i don't know in what situation a regional board would decide to  is through a referendum and there are also other ways they are in district it's hands are not tied patel itself provides for ways that it can raise revenue that it can increase its extension limitation beyond what the limits are again by by having a referendum there's three different sections at section one ninety two zero five and two twelve and they all would allow the district itself to go to the voters and say we would like to increase the limiting rate or we'd like to issue a new bond we would like to increase the extension limitation beyond the consumer  we'd like to increase our debt service extension base so they can go and ask to raise more money than would otherwise bided for it's just that they have to ask and they can't simply get out from the patel limitations through this an exchange of territory so i think that the language of the statute is clear and because this situation is not provided as a basis for revocation and you have an existing district that continues to this then you have to look at section two fourteen and the reputation and as i said at the beginning to the extent that there are to be reasonable interpretations of the scheme here it is the department's interpretation that furthers the legislative intent of giving tax payers greater control over keeping a limit on their property tax increases and in contrast the board's interpretation revocation provision to section two fourteen that isn't there and it also would stymie the will of the voters say county who said they want this this district to be subject to its letter i mean we have also had advanced the same position in this litigation the letter does say that it is the department's view from looking at sections two thirteen to fourteen that there is no replication of tele circumstances as well as the plain language of the department cited the legislative intent the fact that the amount of territory in montgomery county is so has no vote in this situation that the board could have then immediately gone to the voters and either we'd like to raise the limit like to raise good morning i have my cell phone and you know i'm here for the board of education government school district the department is now offering what is the terms of a reasonable interpretation of section eight hundred two thirteen and two fourteen of tell as your honour's noted this is a very recent interpretation it was that section two fourteen was given very short shrift in the letter of the guidance lighter and that motion for summary summary judgment but while it's not a actually issued the letter to the clerk issue i think that was entirely reasonable but i mean i usually isn't there some and there really aren't any there are no thousand dollars twenty two thousand five hundred twenty two i mean million twenty two million of that comes from the diaper district so this is not a small amount of talking about that regardless which is equally as likely same in county voters hold the two fourteen referendum and vote to remove the tell montgomery county voters do nothing is the tel that section requires that each of the counties if any e a v have held a referendum of one of the two pac so to tell does not magically a fire just because we can come up with a scenario that would work there are plenty of scenarios where would not work the will of hanging county voters there is not that franklin county even though they could tell into a fact could not under that scenario remove it even though they comprise a majority of the people they could remove it even though they have most of the e a v they couldn't remove it and the reason they can't remove it is because of the plane o ambiguous language used by the legislature into fourteen g i which requires two referendum one in each of the counties if those were their reworked counties we have to have more referenda but a head to section two fourteen if we go back to two thirteen which is the statute that governs the application of patel intact districts that have more of them are located in more than one county and this is the one that gets out difficult to read because they refer so often to the excluded counties  and that hasn't happened montgomery county has never held any referendum under patel so what we're left with is that the plain language of section two thirteen that governs not been applied to our district as a whole to patel works when it's the county board that decides whether or not there is a patel referendum not not a local tax that's right so i'm in school district has no authority to go to the posters and say happened at the time up to thirteen that's the problem there just is no guidance from the legislature there's no guidance from anyone hands on council is let's just say  subject to tell and so the for the montgomery voters to now hold a referendum yea or nay would not affect a district that already has become subject to tap there is there is one operative for section two thirteen it's application and that is at the initial determination of whether to tell applies following a problem to the obert district because it is a district that became subject to the law under section two thirteen at that point section two thirteen job is done you then can only look at section two fourteen to determine how those limitations might revoked and so in both situations the operative moment is is the initial determination of whether patel does or does not apply so you're saying if you have two counties in a district that's entirely within one county at the time the referendum's hell that's that's easy that's subsection you want and clearly tell applies if you have for example if  county the department looks at our district and says nope tell does not apply because at this moment you are a multi county taxing district and so until monk operate county holds a referendum and a lax to impose the limitations you are not subject to the top so there is no simultaneous requirement it could have been a referendum in the country code there could be one today there could yes but it wouldn't affect the arbor district because the auburn district already is a district that became subject to the top one and there's the section two thirteen about it being a larger then it then you look at the majority of the so in this situation it still would not make a difference if for example the auburn districts were now fifty two percent montgomery county forty eight percent sangamon county if it is still be auburn district unit community district ten that same district it i activism there are reports position is that they can write in to tell a way to ok without going to the voters at all even though there are numerous sections that discuss how you may increase your limit over what tell provides for and there's a section two fourteen that provides explicit provisions for revocation and so it would seem to be more reading something into the law health concerns we have these safety concerns we need to raise money please approve it let us raise this money and there's provision for that in section one thousand there is provision for raising the limiting rate and  it's a case that needs to be