Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/2007AGENDA WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY January 16, 2007 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority on Tuesday, January 16, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. Call the Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Approval of Minutes -December 5, 2006 4. Public Forum (This is the time for any persou to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 5. New Business A. Discussion with Rob Osborn/WR2020 B. Discussion about New Open Meeting Law Case 6. Adjournment MINUTESOF WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY December 5, 2006 6:00 p.m. 2. 3. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting of the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority was called to order by Chair Williams at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Authority members present: Commissioners absent: James Bahrenburg Teri Carver Larry Schulz Terrell Williams Pete Ziemke 4. 5. Janet Leo Also attending: Alan White, WRLJRA Executive Director Corey Hoffmann, Attorney for WRLJRA Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 17, 2006 It was moved by Pete Ziemke and seconded by James Bahrenburg to approve the minutes of October 17, 2006. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Authority. PUBLIC HEARING A. Resolution 04-2006 - Presentation and Approval of 2007 Budget The 2007 Budget for the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority was presented by Alan White. He advised that proper noticing for this public hearing had taken place and there was jurisdiction for the Authority to conduct the hearing. Chair Williams invited members of the public to address the budget. Charles Durbin Alan White clarified a portion of the budget at Mr. Durbin's request. WRLIRA December 5, 2006 - 1 ' There were no other individuals present who wished to address the budget. Chair Williams closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was moved by Larry Schulz and seconded by Teri Carver to adopt Resolution 04-2006, a resolution enacting a budget and appropriation for 2007 with an amendment to Exhibit 3 that the $24,000 should go under Site Improvements rather than Acquisition and Retocation. The motion passed unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 05-2006 - Approval of an Amendment to the 38t" Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Transmittiag the Same to the Wheat Ridge City Council This matter was presented by Chair Williams. The Second Amendment would correct some minar technical errors in the First Amendment and initiate taac increment financing for the Wheat Ridge Cyclery expansion project. It was moved by James Bahrenburg and seconded by Larry Schulz to adopt Resolution 05-2006, a resolution approving a modification to the 38th Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The motion passed unanimously. B. Review Agreement with Wheat Ridge Cyclery Regarding Sales Tax Increment This matter was introduced by Alan White. Authority members reviewed a proposed agreement with Wheat Ridge Cyclery that would reimburse the Cyclery for eligible costs incurred in expanding their business through tax increment financing. Ron Kiefel, owner of Wheat Ridge Cyclery described the improvements to their property including a new roof for the building, addition of art panels, landscaping, parking lot, curb and gutter. A tour of Wheat Ridge Cyclery was scheduled for 9:00 a.m., December 16. All Authority members were encouraged to attend. Pete Ziemke commented that he is in favor of taac increment financing to assist in improvements such as those presented by Wheat Ridge Cyclery that present a public benefit by being far and above the normal requirements. The agreement was presented for discussion only at this time. It will be brought back to the Authority for approval when all the details are finalized. C. Review of Land Use Case - WZ-06-1 I /Dinneen This case was presented by Alan White. The owner of property at the southwest WRIJRA December 5, 2006 - Z ' corner of 38th and Benton is seeking to rezone Lot 2 from Commercial One to Planned Residential Development in order to build a two-family dwelling. The Authority reviewed this land use case to determine whether the request conforms to the urban renewal plan. The Authority reached the following finding on this case: While the proposed use is not commercial as recommended for this area in the urban reuewal plan, the proposed residential use is an improvement to the vacant lot and the overall appearance of the urban renewal area. D. Update on Lawsuit with Cornerstone Corey Hoffinann stated that there was nothing new to report regarding the court case. E. Discussion of Designating Additional Urban Renewal Areas This matter was presented by Chair Williams. Lakeside Mall is soon to be demolished. Since Lakeside is such a small community, he suggested that Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority meet with Rob Osborn and representatives from Lakeside in an effort to offer assistance in redevelopment of the azea. He discussed the possibility of extending the urban renewal designations to other areas of the city. Corey Hoffmann explained that adding to the existing urban renewal plan is the same as initiating a new plan in terms of blight studies, etc. He suggested conducting a workshop including WRLJRA, City Council and Wheat Ridge 2020 to discuss and identify possible areas to be designated as urban renewal areas. F. Election of Chairperson for 2007 Terrell Williams was elected as Chair and Pete Ziemke as Vice Chair of the Authority for the year 2007. 7. Executive Session under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402-(4)(e) for the purpose of determining matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations and/or instructing negotiators. It was determined there was no need to conduct an executive session at this time. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Terrell Williams, Chair WRiJRA December 5, 2006 Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary -3- HAYES, PHILLIPS, HOFFMANN & CARBERRY, P.C. KWUM Attomeys at Law Suite 450, The Market Center 1350 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1576 Telephone: (303) 825-6444 • Facsimile: (303) 825-1269 ~ D John E. Hayes Fairplay Off ce Hilary Mogue Graham Corey Y. Hoffmann 675 Main Street Jefferson H. Parker Kendra L. Carbeay P.O. Box 1046 Gregory D. Graham Fairplay, CO 80440 Charissa A. Eckhout Of Counsel Telephone: (719) 836-9005 Heibert C. Phillips Facsimile: (719) 836-9010 WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: COREY Y. HOFFMANN, ESQ.6#_ CHARISSA A. ECKHOUT, ESQ. G~e DATE: JANUARY 8, 2007 RE: NEW OPEN MEETINGS LAW CASE The purpose of this memorandum is to bring to your attention a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision regarding the required contents of a public meeting notice under the Colorado Open Meetings Law (the "OML"), C.R.S. § 24-6-401, et. seq. In Darien v. Town of Marble, 2006 WL 3316281 (Colo. App. Nov. 16, 2006), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the Town of Marble failed to give proper notice under the OML by not including specific agenda information where the Board made a decision on a matter not properly noticed. Marble, 2006 WL 3316281 at *3. This decision directly impacts the notice requirements for all open meetings, including those meetings held by the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority. Case Summary In pertinent part, the facts ofDarien v. Town ofMarble are as follows. Mazble from the Yule Marble Quarry, near the Town of Marble, has been used for many well-known monuments, including the Tomb of the Unknowns in the Arlington National Cemetery. Id. at *1. Representatives from the Arlington National Cemetery contacted the owner of the quarry to obtain a replacement for the existing tomb. Id. The quarry owner submitted a proposal for two blocks of marble to be quarried, one as a replacement far the Tomb and one as insurance against the possibility of damage to the first block. Id. It was suggested that, if transport of the first /B/07 Q.9USERSIWRlJR91CAEIMEETlNG AGENDAS-MOI.DOC January 8, 2007 Page 2 block was successful, the second block could be retained and permanently displayed at the Mill Site Park' (the "Park"). The Town Board authorized the mayor to appoint members to a Mill Site Committee (the "Committee"). Id. The role of the Committee was to gather public opinion on the proposal, develop options, and present them to the Board. Id. Hal Sidenlinger, a member of the Boazd, and Dana Darien, a Plaintiff in this case, were both appointed to the committee. Id. The Committee was given until February 5, 2004 to report its findings. Id. The deed originally conveying the Puk to the Town restricted the property to certain uses. Id. at *2. Accordingly, there was some concern as to whether the marble block could be displayed on the old mill site. Upon discovering this restriction, the Committee was granted additional time to research the issue. Id. The next Committee meeting was scheduled for January 15, 2004. Id. However, before the next Committee meeting, the Boazd was scheduled to hold its meeting on January 8, 2004. Included within the posted meeting notice was a fifteen minute time slot for a Mill Site Committee update, which read: 6. Mill Site Committee Update Ha] Sidenlinger 730-7:45 PM Autborization for Mill Site Committee Survey expenditure(s) Endorse Replacement of MSC Member. Id. Below the agenda, there were also several additional notices that appeared, including one which stated "[t]he next Mill Site Committee meeting will be held Thursday, January 15 at 7:00 p.m. in the school." Id. During Hal Sidenlinger's update at the January 8, 2004 Boazd meeting, he read a portion of the Town's master plan which stated, "[t]he community does not want to host more visitors by promoting, exploiting or otherwise marketing the Mill Site as an attraction. The historic site should be lefr in its existing state." Id. Based on this language in the Town's master plan, Mr. Sidenlinger stated that he could not support the project. Id. Thereafter, in his capacity as a Boazd member, Mr. Sidenlinger made a motion that the Board not allow a permanent structure be built on the Mill Site, nor allow the second block of marble to be a permanent display there. Id. Despite the fact that the agenda for the meeting did not include any notice of any action on the mill site project, the Board approved and adopted the motion. Id. While several proponents of the project had attended previous meetings, none were present when the Board voted to reject it. Many proponents of the project were upset by the Boazd's decision and protested the Board's Januazy vote. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs argued that the Board should rescind its January 8'h vote to allow for a public hearing on the matter. Id. The I The Mill Site Park is owned by the Town of Mazble, and is the historic site of the mill at which Yale Marble was milled. Darien v. Town ofMarbie, 2006 WL 3316281 at *1. 1181m Q. I USF•RSIWRURAIGEIMEETlNG AGBNDAS-MOI.DOC January 8, 2007 Page 3 Board declined to do so, and the plaintiffs filed suit, contending that the public notice for the January meeting did not comply with the OML. Id. The trial court ultimately held that the notice given was sufficient to satisfy the OML's requirements. Id. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. Id. In ruling, the court of appeals examined the OML and reasoned that, "the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret. To this end, a governmental body may hold a meeting at which it adopts, among other things, a policy or position only after `full and timely notice' to the public." Id. (citing C.R.S. § 24-6-402(2)(c)). The court further noted that, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(2)(c), the notice must be posted in accordance with the statute and include "specific agenda information where possible." Id. The court also looked to Colorado Supreme Court precedent stating that the OML establishes a"flexible standard aimed at providing fair notice to the public." Id. (citing Benson v. McCormick, 578 P.2d 653 (Colo. 1978)). The court then held that: When applying this flexible standard, we consider the nature oFthe governmental action, the importance of ensuring that the public has an opportunity to participate, and the extent to which giving notice - would unduly interfere with the ability of public officials to perform their duties n a reasonable manner. * * * To ensure the public has an opportunity to participate, absence of a measure's proponent or of a witness who has important information may require that consideration of a measure be postponed to a later date. Darien v. Town ofMarble, 2006 WL 3316281 at *3. Ultimately, the court of appeals determined that the establishment of the committee process and the mayar's request for guidance on ways to obtain public opinion demonstrated that the community and the Board agreed that the public should be involved in the decision-making process. Id. at *4. Furthermore, given that the mayor extended the committee's report deadline, the court held that there was no urgency to make a decision, and thus giving notice of the Board's intention to make a final decision at a later meeting would not have unduly interfered with the Boazd's ability to conduct its business. Id. Finally, the court rejected the Town's argument that, because specific agenda information is only required "where possible," the Board had complied with the OML because the Board was unaware that there would be a vote that night: l/8/07 Q: I USERSIWRURAICAEIMEET/NG AGENDAS-MOLDOC January 8, 2007 Page 4 Given the Board's awareness of the extensive public interest, the absence of the projecYs proponents from the meeting, the lack of urgency, and the absence of evidence that postponement of the decision would have unduly interfered with the ability of the Board to perform its duties, the statutory phrase "where possible" as urged by the Town would be contrary to the OML's requirements of full notice. Id. at *5. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Board's notice was not full, adequate, or fair under the circumstances. Id. The court then invalidated the action taken by the Board. Id. The Decisiods Implications Several questions and concerns have been raised concerning the court's interpretation of the OML in the Marble case. Specifically, many commentators are concerned with the breadth of the decision. Under a strict reading, the agenda for a public meeting may not deviate from the precise business listed in the public notice. Accordingly, if a council or board member wishes to raise some "other business," no action may be taken on that matter until proper notice is given. The Marble decision is also problematic, because it creates an incentive for dissatisfied community activists to challenge the adequacy of an open meeting's notice after an otherwise valid vote. Addressing such challenges could prove to be burdensome on the councils, boards, and commissions that hold public meetings. Importantly, it seems that the Marble decision is limited to the un-noticed adoption of a policy or position. Accordingly, the mere discussion of an issue not included on a public meeting agenda would not violate the OML. As you aze aware, it is often difficult to foresee what issues may arise or what action may be proposed during an open meeting. Accordingly, the Marble decision places a burden on those officials who manage open meetings to ensure that no policy or position is formally adopted if that policy or position was not outlined on the public notice's agenda. If a measure has not been properly noticed, any decision on that matter must be postponed until a later date. Importantly, OML notice violations can also be prevented by carefully drafting meeting agendas so that there is always the possibility of a formal action. For example, in the Marble case, had the public notice read "Mill Site Committee update: discussion and possible action," the case might have resulted in a different decision. By always leaving open the possibility of formal action, it seems that there could be no objection to the sufficiency of notice. Conclusion The Marble decision has significantly impacted the notice requirements of the OML. Specifically, formal action during open meetings must now be limited to the exact agenda items printed on the public meeting notice. Last-minute issues may not be added and action taken without notice being posted at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to a scheduled meeting. If a 1/8/07 Q:I USERSIWR fIRAI CAEIMEETING AGENDAS-MOLDOC January 8, 2007 Page 5 matter has not been properly noticed, consideration of the measure must be postponed until a later date. It is our understanding that the Town of Marble intends to file a petition for certiorari review with the Colorado Supreme Court, so it is possible that this decision may be overtumed. We will update this memorandum as necessary. In the meantime, if you have any ques[ions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. 1/8/07 Q:I USERSIWR URAICAEIMEETlNG AGENDAS-MOI.DOC