ArvadaforAllthePeople

$30 Land Deal: What You Need to Know NOW!

 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

 

Slide Album

$30 Land Deal Court Ruling: What It Means

 

$30 Land Deal Court Ruling: What It Means

By Arvada for All the People

The Colorado Court of Appeals agrees with Arvada for All the People.

In a ruling delivered Thursday, May 14, 2020, the Arvada grassroots citizen's group garnered a favorable decision from the Court on the controversial $30 Land Deal apartment project.

The effect of the decision is that developer Trammell Crow will have to start the development approval process as a new applicant – the city council's March 2018 approval is void. 

The lawsuit was filed over the Arvada city council's interpretation of the Land Development Code that Arvada for All the People believed was wrong and excluded public participation.

The original plan called 'Olde Town Residences' contemplated the construction of a six story structure consisting of a two story parking garage topped with four floors of 256 luxury apartments that would have loomed over Wadsworth Bypass.

Especially controversial was Arvada Urban Renewal Authority's (AURA) plan to sell the nine acres of public land – then valued by the Jefferson County Assessor at almost $6 million – to developer Trammell Crow for $30. The developer was also to get $13 million in taxpayer subsidies through a sales and property tax rebate until 2034.

The development was rejected by the city council in January 2018, but subsequently approved in a 'reapplication' the following March. Arvada for All the People filed a lawsuit in April 2018 objecting to the city council's tortured reading of the law for reconsidering an already disapproved project and AURA's efforts to railroad the development.

The Jefferson County District Court decided against Arvada for All the People in March 2019. This decision was appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The victory at the Court of Appeals does not necessarily stop the project. Trammell Crow could make a new application for the very same plan or one substantially the same.

Make no mistake this is a project incompatible with Olde Town and is unpopular with many Arvadans.

• Blatant corporate welfare and manipulation of the free market.
• Destroys the 'grand view' from Arvada's historic Grandview Avenue.
• Increases traffic congestion on already congested Wadsworth Bypass
• Would provide apartments unaffordable to most people.
• Basic services are not available in the area.

However, a newly adopted revised Land Development Code could fast track this bad project and once again we could see it railroaded to approval – this time with no public input whatsoever.

Arvada for All the People believes that the honorable and honest thing for the city council to do is direct that a new application for the same or a similar Trammell Crow project for this location be heard by the Planning Commission and the council, itself.

Arvada for All the People, of course, has the right to again consider legal action if it appears that City Hall is trying to inappropriately grease the rails for Trammell Crow and Arvada Urban Renewal.

There are always choices to be made by people in government. If Arvada Urban Renewal and unelected functionaries at City Hall try to once again ram this project through with minimal input from Arvada residents, that will be an insult and a slap-in-the-face to so many who care passionately about this city's history and traditions.

The land in question has much potential to add to the economic base and the quality of life in Arvada. It would be commendable if the citizens' voices were heard about compatibility with the Olde Town area and it would be better if the free market were allowed to function as it should.

Arvada for All the People has been at the forefront of wanting a free market process to work in this situation. The standards and history of Olde Town Arvada can be respected while enhancing the prosperity of our community.

 

Looking south; the project would destroy the 'grand view' from Grandview Avenue

 

Looking north; the government subsidized project will create a massive wall that is incompatible
with the character of Olde Town Arvada

 

 Conceptualization photos courtesy of Blade Four Productions

Arvada Citizens Group Wins $30 Land Deal Lawsuit

 

Press Release issued today, Monday, May 18, 2020, by Arvada for All the People.

 

Win at the Court of Appeals - $30 Land Deal

 

Arvada for All the People has prevailed in its appeal of the District Court's decision on the $30 Land Deal project.

Under the opinion issued today, Thursday, May 14, 2020, the developer Trammell Crow has to start the planning process anew, as if it was a new application. The City Council's approval is void! 

 

Download Appeal Decision AAP Opinion 5-14-20

 

In Arvada "An Appearance of Corruption"

 

To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Something is rotten in the city of Arvada." 

It is plain on the face of it, ten maximum campaign contributions made on the same date, from the same business address, from development companies all with the same registered agent has an unambiguous "appearance of corruption."

Arvada for All the People has since its founding advocated for reform of our municipal government to make it more accountable and transparent. We are supportive of any efforts to ensure that future elections are not tainted by the "appearance of corruption." The circumstances discussed here warrant an investigation by the City Clerk and also call for a tightening of the City's rules on campaign contributions to avoid obvious conflicts of interest and to guarantee to our citizens that our elected officials are working for ALL of us.

 

---

 

Cynthia M. Kreutzer
Grandview Ave., Arvada, CO  80002

 

December 3, 2019

Kristen Rush
City Clerk
City of Arvada
8101 Ralston Rd.
Arvada, CO 80002

This complaint relates to campaign contributions that were accepted by Marc Williams for the 2019 election cycle. I am writing on behalf of numerous Arvada citizens who have expressed their concern about an “appearance of corruption”, based on the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act. Our concern is regarding numerous questionable contributions made to Mayor Williams campaign. Unfortunately, it is difficult to decipher whether municipal elections are required to follow the state statute. The references made in this document are related to CRS 1-45-101, et. Seq., but the basic reasons for concern should apply to any campaign finance regulatory document.

As you can see from the attached spreadsheet, I have only included contributions from certain property developers, but there are numerous other contributions from other developers and development related businesses.  

We believe that in the most recent election, at least two situations could be considered “wealthy contributors and special interest groups”, as defined in the Fair Campaign Practices Act, contributing to the Williams campaign. 

The first concern is about several entries you will find on the third Campaign Finance report. Ten different LLC’s each donated the maximum of $750 and are all listed at the same address and have the same registered agent, Christopher Elliott. He is a long-time member of the Denver development community and is also listed in the Articles of Organization as forming the LLCs for several of the entities. We believe these 10 contributions are a violation of:

1-45-103.7. Contribution limits - county offices - treatment of independent expenditure committees - contributions from limited liability companies - voter instructions on spending limits - definitions. (5)(d)(II)

Any contribution by a limited liability company, and the aggregate amount of contributions from multiple limited liability companies attributed to a single member of any such company under this subparagraph (II), shall be subject to the limits governing such contributions under section 3 of article XXVIII of the state constitution. A limited liability company that makes any contribution to a candidate committee, political committee, or political party shall, at the time it makes the contribution, provide information to the recipient committee or political party as to the amount of the total contribution attributed to each member of the limited liability company. The attribution shall reflect the capital each member of the limited liability company has invested in the company relative to the total amount of capital invested in the company as of the date the company makes the campaign contribution, and for a single member limited liability company, the contribution shall be attributed to that single member. The limited liability company shall then deduct the amount of the contribution attributed to each of its members from the aggregate contribution limit applicable to multiple limited liability companies under this subparagraph (II) for purposes of ensuring that the aggregate amount of contributions from multiple limited liability companies attributed to a single member does not exceed the contribution limits in section 3 of article XXVIII of the state constitution. Nothing in this subparagraph (II) shall be construed to restrict a natural person from making a contribution in his or her own name to any committee or political party to the extent authorized by law.

 

All 10 contributors reference the same address:

7353 S. Alton Way; Centennial, CO 80112
Ste. A-100

All reported on October 12, 2019 (the first day of the third reporting period not made public until a few days before the election).

 

	Registered Agent	Person forming LLC
• RF Land Investment	Chris Elliott	Regan Hauptman
• Mountain Shadow LLC	Christopher Elliott	unknown
• Hawthorne Development, Inc.	Christopher Elliott	unknown
• Cundall Farms, LLC	Christopher Elliott	Christopher Elliott
• HR 935, LLC	Christopher P. Elliott	Christopher Elliott
• RRCEA, LLC	Christopher P. Elliott	Christopher P. Elliott
• Ralston Ridge, LLC	Chris Elliott	Chris Elliott
• SSM Ridge, LLC	Chris Elliott	Chris Elliott
• TCIRATO, LLC	Christopher Elliott	Christopher Elliott
• RRCEA Two, LLC	Christopher Elliott	Christopher Elliott

 

Without access to any of the relevant business records of these LLCs, we have no way to verify the extent of Mr. Elliott’s involvement in each, but he is clearly a key factor.

Second, there is Remington Homes, and although it is hard to see just from the Campaign Finance Reports (also attached), several members of the founder’s family and current Executive Officers donated the maximum of $750 each for a total of $8250.00 to Marc Williams campaign. We question if these contributions all came from one development entity using individuals as a technical loophole to meet contribution rules. The following contributors related to Remington Homes, donated the maximum of $750 each:

 

Holly Bristol	(Remington employee)
Citrus Catering	(business owned by family member)
Regan Hauptman	(family member of founder and corporate executive)
Matt Cavanaugh	(corporate executive)
Jennifer Hemelic	(family member)
G. Polchot	(corporate executive)
H. Polchot	(corporate executive)
Paul Hauptman	(company founder)
Lorraine Hauptman	(family member)
Jerrald Hauptman	(family member)
Patricia Hauptman	(family member)

 

It appears that these contributions violate the ‘spirit’ of the law and are contributed by individuals, to avoid violating the ‘letter’ of the law.

As I understand it, the next step in this process is for you to meet with the City Attorney to review our complaint and determine if you believe it has merit.

 If you need any further information, feel free to contact me at your convenience.  

Regards,

 

Cindi Kreutzer

AND:

Dave Chandler
Juli German
Treva Hearne
Michele Hoffman
Robin Kupernik
Bob McGrath
Mindy Mohr
Daniel Ratkovich
Mary Ratkovich
Caitlin Reusch
Susan Shirley
Dale Simpson, Jr.
Randy Stafford
Jeffrey Staniszewski
Karen Tonso
Julia Vitanyi
Cheri Wissel
Nancy Young
Jodi Weiser
Ryan Zerr

---

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Approved at the November 18, 2019 council meeting: 

• R19-108 - Hill Petroleum received approval of a $600,000 purchase order to provide fuel for city vehicles.  Hill Petroleum donated $250 to Williams 2019 campaign.

On the agenda for that same council meeting:

• R19-117 – Resolution Authorizing Quit Claim Deeds

A Resolution for a Quit Claims Deed that included an Easement Agreement for the Jefferson Parkway with RRCEA (one of the 10 LLC contributors).  One of the documents, a Multi-Use Easement Agreement dated July 26, 2012, includes the signatures of both Christopher Elliott and Regan Hauptman (Remington Homes).  This issue is included to reflect that Mr. Elliott is more than a Registered Agent for one of the LLCs and because it reflects the overlapping relationships between campaign contributors, the City of Arvada and Mayor Marc Williams.

• CB19-046  

The first reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Fifth Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Jefferson Center Metropolitan District #2 whose President is Charles McKay, another campaign contributor.

---

Download PDF: Williams 2019 Campaign Contributors Related to Property Developers

Williams October 29, 2019 Contributions & Expenditures Report
PDF Link to the Report

 

This is What Special Interest Campaign Money Looks Like in Arvada

It's time to clean up Arvada City Hall. This kind of special interest intrusion into our politics does not comport with
the values of Arvada residents.

---

From the third required Contributions & Expenditures Report.
[ PDF Link to the Report ]

Marc Williams for Mayor Committee

Filed October 29, 2019

$7,500 in campaign contributions.

All the maximum $750 contribution by check.

All with the address:

7353 S. Alton Way; Centennial, CO 80112
Ste. A-100

All on October 12, 2019

• RF Land Investment - Registered Agent Chris Elliott
• Mountain Shadow LLC - Registered Agent Christopher Elliott
• Hawthorne Development, Inc.- Registered Agent Christopher Elliott
• Cundall Farms, LLC - Registered Agent Christopher Elliott
• HR 935, LLC - Registered Agent Christopher P. Elliott
• RRCEA, LLC- Registered Agent Christopher P. Elliott
• Ralston Ridge, LLC- Registered Agent Chris Elliott
• SSM Ridge, LLC- Registered Agent Chris Elliott
• TCIRATO, LLC - Registered Agent Christopher Elliott
• RRCEA Two, LLC- Registered Agent Christopher Elliott

 

 

Hall for Mayor

For more information about Harriet and her position on Arvada issues:
HarrietHallforArvada.com

Recommendations: Arvada Election Issues 2018

 

Arvada Election Questions 2018

 

Arvada for All the People 

 

Recommendations

 

 

City of Arvada

Ballot Question 3F

Street Improvement Bond

 

Neutral

 

The Ralston Road improvements that would be funded by this bond are needed and necessary. Arvada for All the People supports this upgrade and finds the cost as described in the ballot language to be reasonable.

However, there are too many questions unanswered by City Hall about the 72nd Avenue–Union Pacific Railroad crossing project for us to fully support the entire measure.

Be aware that if this particular measure does not pass, the City using this same revenue stream with no increase in taxes, could propose another street projects bond next year.

Here are questions about the 72nd Avenue–Railroad crossing that have yet to be addressed by the proponents:

 

1) Why an underpass? The City Manager has been asked repeatedly why an expensive and very disruptive construction for an underpass is preferred over an improved at-grade crossing. We haven’t been able to find out if there was even a negotiation with Union Pacific about an at-grade improvement.

2) The price for the 72nd Avenue underpass is pegged at $53 million. That’s 66 percent of the bond’s projects cost. That seems like a lot for one project when there are so many transportation infrastructure needs throughout the city. Why so much for this one project? Why has the 72nd Avenue-RR crossing become the top road improvement priority for the city?

3) Then again, what happens if federal funds contributions reduce the cost to the taxpayer? Or even more interesting, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission may require (and the City may negotiate for) the Union Pacific to pay up to half the cost. What happens to the saved money? Up to $26 million. The ballot language is vague about how surplus money from the bond might be spent. It appears that the City could spend up to $26 million on ANY sidewalk, crosswalk, or intersection along ANY east-west street.

4) We have not been able to get from the City Manager any data about current railroad traffic on the Union Pacific line that crosses 72nd Avenue. Is it really significant and creating genuine automobile traffic problems on 72nd Avenue, Kipling, or Oak streets? Since Xcel is decommissioning two coal power plants in Colorado, there may be even less railroad traffic on that line in the near future. Is this one improvement really worth a potential cost to the taxpayers of over $50 million?

 

Arvada voters will have to decide if out of a $125 million bond, the $17 million improvements for Ralston Road are worth all of the rest of the tax dollars going to interest and the 72nd Avenue-Railroad project.

There are too many unknowns and unanswered questions about the major portion of this bond measure for Arvada for All the People to unreservedly support Question A3. We recommend that voters seek answers themselves and make up their own minds.

 

WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX or INCREASING ANY TAX RATE, SHALL CITY OF ARVADA DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $79.8 MILLION WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $125 MILLION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS AND FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BY ENHANCING INTERSECTIONS, SIDEWALKS AND CROSSWALKS, AND IMPROVING DRIVER SAFETY BY EASING TRAFFIC CONGESTION ALONG MAJOR EAST-WEST ROADS IN THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY RALSTON ROAD BETWEEN YUKON AND GARRISON STREETS, AND ON 72ND AVENUE BETWEEN KIPLING AND SIMMS STREETS; PROVIDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS WILL BE MONITORED BY A COUNCIL APPOINTED OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF RESIDENTS, AND SUCH EXPENDITURES WILL BE REPORTED IN THE CITY'S INDEPENDENT AUDIT PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE AND NO PROCEEDS MAY BE USED FOR CITY ADMINISTRATION. YES/NO

 

* * *

 

Arvada Fire Protection District

Ballot Question 6F  

“Revenue Stabilization”

 

No

 

1) The need for this is undemonstrated. There is not a decline in revenues at the Fire District:

From the 2018 AFPD Budget p. 39
Download 2018 Final Budget Narrative

 

2) It is too complicated. Read it then try and explain it to someone. From the ballot language, if the Residential Assessment Rate declines, then the Fire District's mill levy will increase.

3) Your taxes are going to go up. Someone has got to pay for a stable revenue stream … that would be you, the taxpayer.

4) This is more properly an issue for the state legislature. The problem (such as it exists) is the result of the effects of two amendments to the Colorado constitution: the Gallageher Amendment and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, TABOR. Consequently, the best fix for any problem should be worked out at the state capitol.

 

WITHOUT INCREASING THE DISTRICT'S EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE MULTIPLIED BY THE DISTRICT'S MILL LEVY) AND IN ORDER TO STABILIZE TAX REVENUE THAT THE DISTRICT NEEDS TO PROVIDE ITS COMMUNITY WITH FIRE, RESCUE, AMBULANCE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: • MAINTAINING EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES; • PROVIDING TRAINING FOR LIFE-SAVING MEDICAL AND OTHER EMERGENCY RESPONSE TECHNIQUES TO ENSURE FIREFIGHTER AND CITIZEN SAFETY; AND • MEETING GROWING DEMANDS FOR VITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES. SHALL ARVADA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO DECREASE OR INCREASE ITS CURRENT AND ALL FUTURE MILL LEVIES, IF ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 6, 2018, THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE METHOD OF CALCULATING ASSESSED VALUATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUATION DUE TO ARTICLE X SECTION 3 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION SO THAT, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE ACTUAL TAX REVENUES GENERATED BY SUCH MILL LEVIES ARE THE SAME AS THE ACTUAL TAX REVENUES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED HAD SUCH CHANGES NOT OCCURRED? YES/NO

 

* * *

 

State of Colorado

Amendment 74

 

No

 

This is a state question with significant local effects. Amendment 74 would strip away virtually all the safeguards that local control gives us to make decisions about how our city progresses. This confusing and overly broad amendment, supposedly to protect property rights, would require the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to compensate property owners, including corporate interests and industry, for any decrease in the value of their property – including loss of profits – due to any government law or regulation. 

 

What You Need to Know About Amendment 74
... the language is so broad that it could limit or make impossible regular functions of local government, as well as burden taxpayers with tremendous costs of litigation and compensation for private property owners.

5280 Magazine; September 22, 2018

 

This ballot measure would define almost any government health, safety or environmental regulation that limits what a property owner can do as a "taking" of private property, thereby requiring us as taxpayers to compensate the property owner for reasonable restrictions protecting communities.

Will Toor – Daily Camera; August 11, 2018

 

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO AWARD JUST COMPENSATION TO OWNERS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WHEN A GOVERNMENT LAW OR REGULATION REDUCES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY? YES/NO

 

 

You Can Help!

 

SUPPORT

 Arvada for All the People 

with a needed financial contribution! 

www

We are waging a District Court challenge

to Arvada Urban Renewal Authority and Arvada City Hall 

over the March 19 illegal Public Hearing

on the $30 Land Deal project.

Donate!

What Do You Think? $80 Million Bond Election

 

Add your comments at the post on Facebook: Let's Talk, Arvada

 

City Council is scheduled to vote on whether or not to refer this to the November 2018 election ballot on Monday, August 27, 2018.