claim and stead the trial court's decision rested on the construction of the contract here a lease between bio brothers and the city the trial court's decision rested on constructions of the statutes as a matter of law not that there were two lisas but any right back does not change the standard of review which is of course they know so the question before the court is whether the option is construed as a renewal which give the city rights to a new lease for twenty years thus the trial court held why there should be construed as an extension which would give the city the right to extend the lease on the same terms and conditions and the exercise when it does refer to carry on like installments there is also a twenty year prohibition or twenty year limitation i think bad bad language if construed in the way that the city reference to a renewal only the city as lassie had the right to exercise the option and there is no evidence that the parties intended to create a new lease in fact i spoke to the contrary and without presenting evidence which is not necessary because this court can take judicial notice all the cities or them with regard to the exercise of the option the city itself states that it is the absolute necessity of extending portion of the ordinance states that city officials are here by all rights to execute an extension of the city's lease on the same time and conditions i think that when you review the factors in view of valid and that's our position then the city's action the city's exercise was out for by any governmental action that is outside the grant of authority for a municipality that is given to it by the legislature there is no prohibition in section eleven one forty with regard to a twenty year time then exemptions in correct for several reasons first eleven one forty and eleven seventy six are both in article by eleven and both are concerned with the city's corporate powers and function they are both concerned with the manner of acquisition of property and order to service corporate power function those two sections are paramilitary and they need to be construed together and in fact sections of the code should be construed together wherever possible and a horn harmonious manner to give effect and that's city are you going to let them one for you is more specific and controls over the general eleven seventy six it's our position that bad is also incorrect a lot of one forty addresses the city's jurisdictional authority to acquire property outside the limits for out like sewers eleven seventy six addresses the city's leasing authority and limits it to terms of twenty years so no one is saying that they could not  where the legislature uses lease and otherwise in the same sentence so he can't possibly be interchanged can't you know you just can't conclude that lease always means otherwise and otherwise always sleeps they're not interchangeable extend the lease not the right to a new lease the exercise of the option to extend resulted as a matter of law and a present demise of forty years that present demise this is you've seen from the briefs there's there's a major under lying dispute sense in the way the briefs have been written and the way the arguments have been made the decision below code it's about what was actually the did what were the facts that were needed what is the least that's attached actually say what is the legal theory that is expressed by the allegations and that binds the parties as far as the factual allegations we make a motion to dismiss we have to take those as admitted and obviously the plaintiff cannot leave one case and then try to argue another so to begin other is an allegation that this least is an extension rather where the option was for an extension and not for you both of those fail on the used eleventh as seventy six point one dash one by its own terms as chosen and acted by the legislature is limited to leases where the consideration is paid in the legislature did not do something it didn't choose to do you know you can't assume that they engaged in some sort of lunacy and said something they didn't and courts which thereof where she said this is plain language so mistake a ball basically there's no problem section and she said after beating parts of a section including the fact that the payments have made one dash three or some other section they could have asked the court for me to further i meant they could have since they knew what these various terms were and me knew what they had put their basically grounds for dismissal of power while the first josh found that eleven down seventy six point one did not apply when she dealt with the original complaint the as you know it was a new judge that does apply first of all because otherwise does cover the suits it's true because it said otherwise we suck worthing are all the other patients where the legislature dealt with the other words that are in the stre before otherwise it included as part of that meaning hers part of that group that society elise so we say definitely number one applies but number two if you look at their complaint there is it there is a paragraph that says what they want to do is they want to cherry pick from each of the sections they look at eleven past seventy six point one dash one in isolation but actually that had other sections attached to it to deals with a back door referendum notice there are other sections that are part of that statutory provision and when you look at eleven dash one forty eight there are other things that have to do in the way of publication it talks make a lot of trying to make this into a forty year lease instead of a twenty year lease with an option for another twenty years and of course that doesn't make any sense of seventy six when it doesn't apply just going on for the sake of argument  restatement and by its own i believe or citing another case i believe that the difference between that and this is a point that they make a lot of realizing this legal significance they say well th that it was they specifically says say paragraph three it was a twenty year term and so what you have has out it an extension where the option is essentially yeah our this is  proof of the fact that they're not alleging that the original complaint was more than twenty years this that paid don't rely on the lease to claim  apply i get with in violation because what happens is that you pay out twenty year lease the twenty year lease and it it was an option for promise for a future release of twenty years year live it but actually what it shows two things number one we all know legislative history by a later legislature and that's why the city council lives say what a prior legislature met by  necessary to extend the elites the rights that the city have were not and driven by anything by the elites who the city the new city council decide anything is the necessity of extending the lease therefore your honor it's our belief that there is that for your demise here they are eleven seventy six prohibits a lease longer than twenty years and that the city is wrong