Parking - Taxpayer Letter Response

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

city of

CINCINNATI
LAW

August 15, 2013

Via email and regular mail CPF(a)fssp-law.com


Christopher P. Finney Finney, Stagnaro, Saba, & Patterson Co., LPA 2623 Erie Avenue Cincinnati,. Ohio 45208

Re:

Response to request for civil action under R.C. 733.56 concerning the authorization and execution of the Long-Term Lease and Modernization Agreement for the City of Cincinnati Parking System

Dear Mr. Finney:

In your letter dated July 17, 2013, you requested that this office seek an injunction under R.C. 733.56 etseq. to restrain an alleged abuse of corporate powers and/or the execution or performance of a contract. Your clients allege that the Long-Term Lease and Modernization Agreement for the City of Cincinnati Parking System ("Parking Lease") as executed is not "substantially in the form" of the version attached to Ordinance 562013. I must deny your request because, among other things:
The Lease provides the City value for an underutilized asset. The changes do not diminish the value that the City will receive or cost the City or its taxpayers any additional money; The differences you describe are neither significant nor material; The Lease is entirely consistent with the intentions of the parties at the time the Ordinance was passed; The City Manager has the authority and discretion to make such changes; and The changes benefit the City and its taxpayers by removing risks.

Accordingly, there is no harm to the City or its taxpayers caused by the ministerial changes your clients are concerned about.

Your argument seems to be that anything more than clerical changes causes the Parking Lease to not be "substantially in the form" passed by Council. You cite no support for this proposition, and we cannot find any. In fact, complaints about the form of legislation, like the complaints your clients have, do not merit a taxpayer lawsuit. Under Ohio law, the mere existence of noncompliant legislation is insufficient to allow judicial intervention into government affairs. State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 436 v. Bd. ofCounty Comm'rs, 20i2-Ohio-i86i, 132 Ohio St.3d 47, HH 16-17 (denying taxpayer

Office of the City Solicitor

801 Plum Street, Suite 214

P 513 352 3334

F 513 352 1515

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1985 www.cincinnati-oh.gov

You might also like