there i think the first important question this case there's something of a unique set of facts this case in question is what happens to this tree when there's a piece of property as here for the use of the property has changed from you know religious the nonexempt before the tip of this form but the change in the exemption or the on that date that the church stop using it but i think it had had that been revoked on that day before it took district ever came into existence would we be here i don't have that true but that's true and i'm not i'm not saying this is this is governed by the rollback statute what i'm saying is the principle of the rollback cases is that you property when it loses its exemption the developer will be entitled to this artificially generated increment that exists only because the exemption disappear generated by the development not increment that would be generated where you know as here by this the loss of the exemption that they put money into this building i believe they did so if they put money into an existing building it doesn't count but if they put the same amount of money into building a building it would not say that but wasn't that what you wanted to be your argument well no what i'm saying is this of the building there's a contract  noticed and and that's why the the the taxing districts or the county is here saying hey that's the way it should be done there there's there should not be this increment if you're talking about the counterclaim of the county file alleging the invalidity of that if that's what you're talking if you're talking about whether that should be barred by latches the answer to that is that the county didn't realize until this case of filed one got its own consultant that there was a problem with the validity of if you're talking about remus regarding the distribution of tax county is not a party that that agreement is between the city and the developer all the county does it yes it's on the door review board but it's not a part of these routes so there's there's no agreement you know solved and they listen to what is said and they and they say yeah we we agree with you it looks like this is available to us or we don't agree with you it's not a relative and if they don't agree then the only thing that happens is there is a supermajority requirement when the city council goes to vote on the tough it has to pass by three fifths of authority if they don't do board that's question what happened in and the the other cases where counties have challenge test for invalidity and they've been held invalid by the courts you know i'm the first to admit that in those cases there there's a there's a problem with it at that stage i'm not going to argue with that in principle perhaps assistant state's attorney should be there but the fact the matter is the system state's attorney wasn't the rathe revocation of the exemption took place the same day the ordinance was filed and the county clerk goes to him and says hey why do the there's been a i think that's right yeah  walk through all the lighting factors one of these stress tests that is normally cost thirty forty thousand dollars maybe for a chest study and unless there is an opportunity for saying i think that this is one of those situations where there were two affection way purpose the fact it's necessary to allow this of this retroactive application to  it issue here well yes if it is that for each year of the life of tips which was what twenty three years yes that's correct so it's a substantial amount of money  oh miss miller and mr bean admit that the equalize the sestet you becomes equalized in the spring of the year following the facts of the year it becomes equalized on the multiplier exempt property from taxable property at the beginning of the assessment process so it is zero whether there is a computer problem out shows or not the same thing is that took that section not in the talks about the taxable property ultimately the initial equalize assessed value of the base is the adding up of all taxable property in the  and you have to go back to two thousand and five equalize assessed value to determine what is taxable most recently ascertained well in november of two thousand and six and most recently ascertained is for instance they can't pay for new buildings they can't reimburse for new buildings those kinds of things do renovation but you can also do public improve some chips of the primary expenditure public improvements generated by the increment and the developers attracted it just on the agreement generated by that particular building you need everything that happens you also capture the moment based on the fact that because you did this one improvement the rest of the property benefits even if they're not renovated in their position i just the city and i thought a long hard fight using this term but really takes great umbrage to the accusation that somehow the city's gaming the system what they've done is they've taken a rundown shopping center and they were thankful to get somebody like propane to look at it and wouldn't buy in fact nobody would buy except the church the reason they were able to pull back in is because their cost of occupancy was lower because of the building and you look at not only the gap position cross but the cost of renovation and you look at the occupancy cost of tenant or be owner and it's about what they can do in the marketplace so they're not going to do it so what does this help more the cost of occupancy and renovation so that they're getting in there at a reasonable cost in order to do it has nothing to do with the process that nobody designed the scheme that is part of a larger scheme to reduce the assessed value for purposes of back i think one in fact anything i think it's the opposite which is the private sector wasn't going to go the buy this legal description for struck now if you look in the middle of that page it shows that the two thousand and five year for this tract is zero exam this document here was used throughout the whole process and forming this tes and means nothing what we're talking about day we're talking about today when was the last time that property had an equal isis us about the most recent and in the over six timeframe that was two thousand and five that number was zero that is use that set off the triggering events and let us hear that now we've heard a lot of talk about there's a contract in place already the buy the property well the affidavit of ton place as it was contingent upon the adoption of the order so it is true that in june a contract had been in or between the developer and the church for this property swap t shape it was auction no private were bought a church property when a church fires property that's good for the parishioners but it's bad for the paxil it was not a property a developer had an interest so this help i can turn this commercial property in the something that can create jobs and money and eventually passing revenue for the school district because what we all have to remember here is the church it kept the property there are never been any real estate now they're paid every year by the developer they go in the to fund and then there's the refund to the developer they will start being paid to the tax and districts at the end of the tear or at such time as the developer has been made whole so the  these opportunities and that some of these folks here are ending anything certainly this this argument about well you know what used to be a nontaxable property is now a taxable property which return rolls it's a red herring because as we just heard what happened is the church exchanged this property for another property that was the developer the only