ArvadaforAllthePeople

Yes! Urban Renewal Reform Bill Holds Promise

Arvada for ALL the People urges the passage of urban renewal reform legislation now working its way through the Colorado General Assembly.

In Arvada, we have recently witnessed a glut of tax-giveaway schemes perpetrated by the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA). The more infamous uses of 'tax increment financing' (TIF) to provide government subsidies to the private developers have been for constructing the Park Place Olde Town (PPOT) apartments, the Solana apartments and the proposed Hilton hotel.

These urban renewal formulas shortchange tax revenue that should be going to school districts, and recreation and fire districts.

Typically, cities will create the urban renewal area, suspend the taxes on property or sales in the designated area and developers use the savings to finance their projects.

But in doing so, county governments, school districts and special taxing districts can lose out on revenue from taxes they levy on the same property unless financial agreements are made beforehand between the various taxing entities.
[Colorado urban-renewal reform battles take a twist with 2 legislative votes-Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal; April 20, 2015]

The reform legislation would make these important improvements to urban renewal authorities:

The bill has three main components: First, it will provide more representation on urban renewal authority boards for affected districts — one seat for a county government official, one seat for a school district official and one seat to represent collectively all other special districts. Second, after the 25 years have concluded, if there's any money left in the authority's bank accounts, it will be distributed back proportionally among the various districts. Third, starting in 2016, cities would need to seek local negotiations with affected entities — either come to an agreement on how much property tax increment can be invested in a project from local government entities, or if they can't come to an agreement, cities can choose to allocate an equal percentage of their sales tax increment to the project as the other local entities' property tax increment.
[Counties support latest urban renewal reform bill-Loveland Reporter-Herald; April 11, 2015]

 

Contact your Arvada area legislator and urge support of this bill: HB 15-1348. There isn't much time left, this General Assembly session is scheduled to conclude on May 6, 2015:

Tracy Kraft-Tharp House District 29
Telephone:303-866-2950
E-mail: [email protected]

Lang Sias, House District 27
Telephone: 303-866-2962
E-mail: [email protected]

Laura Woods, Senate District 19
Telephone: 303-866-4840
E-Mail: [email protected]

* * *

HB 15-1348 Concerning Modifications to Statutory Provisions Governing Urban Renewal Redevelopment to Promote the Equitable Financial Contribution Among Affected Public Bodies in Connection With Urban Redevelopment Projects Allocating Tax Revenues

Arvada's Haughty City Council

Cynical.

The latest word is that the Arvada city council has instructed the city attorney to 'take it to' the Colorado Supreme Court over the recent 'standing' ruling on the 'secrets ballots' lawsuit.

A citizen has the right to sue the government to enforce the Colorado Open Meetings Law -- that was clear even before the council used secret ballots to fill a vacancy and it got clearer with the clarification the legislature passed and that was signed into law last year.

The front page report in the current edition of the Arvada Press explains Russell Weisfield's Appeals Court victory that we announced here last week.

The haughtiness of the Arvada city council is something to behold. Advancing open government seems to be beyond their concern; obeying the letter and intent of the Open Meetings Law appears to be a low priority for them; citizens with the temerity to challenge them earns their disdain.

This lawyerly maneuver furthers nothing except to chew up time and cost Mr. Weisfield legal fees. It is cynical. The Colorado Supreme Court may not even accept the city council's appeal. One may fairly conclude, therefore, that the council and city attorney must mightily fear losing by actually trying the main issue of the case back in district court.

Of course, the city council could have and should have admitted the error of using secret ballots to fill the district one vacancy in the first place ... then redone the appointment process.

But they are haughty, remember -- admit they might have gotten anything wrong? 
Right.

Related story: 

Broomfield council appointment raises questions about secret ballots
Broomfield Enterprise - April 24, 2015
Arvada man alleges city council violated open meetings law; city attorney says rules were followed

* * * 

You can contribute to the cause of defending the Open Meetings law: here.

 

Arvada City Council Against Free Enterprise -- Target This Time: 'Vaping'

by Dave Chandler

What is the Arvada city council's problem with free enterprise?

Because here they go again trying to manipulate the free market, pick winners-and-losers, decide how and where you can spend your money, and decide what kinds of businesses can operate in Arvada.

The issue this time is vaping.

Don't let a couple of scolds on the Arvada city council misdirect you: the proposed city ordinance on vaping to be voted on Monday, May 4, 2015, isn't really about health -- it is yet another assault on free enterprise in our city.

Read the proposed ordinance here: Arvada Ordinance 07.B.05. CB15-017

Vaping is the use of what is commonly known as e-cigarettes. However, there isn't any tobacco, fire or smoke involved. These devices produce a flavored vapor (which may or may not contain nicotine) that an individual inhales and exhales.

There are three vaping supply stores in Arvada. For them to profitably function, they need to offer samples of the vaping liquid, since it is flavored and consumers prefer to sample and then purchase something they like.

But the proposed ordinance would ban and prohibit sampling even inside the vaping stores themselves!

The proponents of this ordinance will try and tell you that vaping is so bad that it ought to fit under all of the restrictions currently in place for the use of tobacco. But as noted before, there isn't any tobacco involved with vaping and there isn't any smoke.

The core objection to this ordinance is that it aims a bullet right at the heart of an enterprises' ability to do business in Arvada and make a profit. 

Part of the 'free' in the concept of 'free enterprise' is that no one makes you purchase a specific product unless you want to ... but you also can if you want to.

Another part of the 'free' in 'free enterprise' is that a business is free to take a risk and offer a product that consumers may or may not want; they are free to succeed or fail based upon their performance in a free market.

Free enterprise is a system that especially works well at the local level because it provides goods and services people need or want and at the same time promotes economic activity that is beneficial to the entire community. (Although, the way things have been going here lately, one might cynically wonder if the disfavor for vaping stores coming from some council members might be because these businesses have not asked of a government subsidy.)

Two other parts of this ordinance would prohibit sales of vaping supplies to minors (none of the stores allow anyone under 18 years of age anyway) and it would prohibit vaping in public places, including parks -- taking the vaping discretion away from restaurants and/or saloons.

The healthfulness of vaping is still being researched, so perhaps such restrictive legislation is premature. Let those Americans who want to patronize vaping stores do so -- Arvada city government ought not be telling individuals how to live nor entrepreneurs how to run their own  businesses. At some point there really does have to be a baseline for freedom and personal responsibility.

The bottomline on this ordinance: if the anti-free enterprise "we always know what is best for you" faction on the city council gets its way, we will lose three productive businesses in Arvada that provide a legal product for hundreds if not thousands of residents.

"the people, who have a right ... and a desire to know"

Open, transparent and straightforward government is fundamental for building and maintaining the confidence of the city's residents. The reputation of Arvada is damaged by governmental conflicts-of-interest, by city council secret ballots, by a plague of secret council 'executive sessions', by insider deals with developers, etc.

Citizen watchdogs are essential to ensuring that municipal government is kept as good and as honest as the people of Arvada. As patriot and President John Adams wrote: “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know.” 

This week the Arvada Press newspaper published on its front page more on the problems at the Design Review Committee; this committee is instrumental in the decision-making process that is sadly attempting to turn Olde Town into a traffic congested, high density residential, inner-city zone.

Here is the latest article: 
Committee actions stir transparency concerns | Arvada Press-April 14, 2015

Arvada for ALL the People now posts the audio of the controversial part of the last Design Review Committee meeting: 

Designreview-Feb-19-2015

* * * 

Previous Arvada for ALL the People articles on this story ...

• Citizen Watchdogs Prove Their Value! | March 28, 2015
• Put 'Community Respect' into Arvada Community Development Department | March 19, 2015
• Olde Town Scandal - Conflict of Interest & Open Meetings Violation | March 13, 2015
• Conflict of Interest? Open Meetings Violation? Cronyism? | March 03, 2015
  

Arvada for ALL the People proposes concrete, substantive changes to help make Arvada City Hall a model for more representative and open government: Action Agenda for Arvada.

 

Fixated on Secrecy at the Arvada City Council

The Arvada City Council begins virtually every one of its regular meetings with a secret meeting.

But this Monday, April 13, 2015, the city council is going on a secret sessions binge at a 'workshop' meeting.

"Executive sessions" are legal for an entity like the city council if they are properly noticed, properly called, voted on by two-thirds of it members and held for very specific reasons outlined in the Colorado Open Meetings Law.

Yet, as the lawsuit over the use of secret ballots to fill a council vacancy is demonstrating, this penchant for secrecy is a habit with the Arvada council.

The reason why there is heavy regulation of "executive sessions" is that governmental secrecy is a dagger aimed at the heart of freedom and democracy. Citizens cannot remain sovereign if they are kept in the dark and are not informed of government debates and the reasons for decisions.

There is clearly a need for closed-door sessions to discuss personnel matters and for receiving some legal advice, but an explanation is warranted when "executive sessions" are held so often, as is the case at Arvada city hall.

Here is what is on the agenda for Monday evening: 

THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM EXECUTIVE SESSION 5:00 P.M.
A. Security Arrangements, Pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(d)

Then the council holds its public 'workshop' on "Emergency Management" in the council chambers at 6:00 P.M. Immediately after that, it is right back upstairs for ...

EXECUTIVE SESSION – THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
A. Legal Advice, Pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b)
B. Instructions to Negotiators, Pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(e)

 What are they talking about? It seems clear from the plain meaning that the law is being skirted:

Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402.(4) The members of a local public body subject to this part 4, upon the announcement by the local public body to the public of the topic for discussion in the executive session, including specific citation to the provision of this subsection (4) authorizing the body to meet in an executive session and identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized, and the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the quorum present, after such announcement, may hold an executive session only at a regular or special meeting and for the sole purpose of considering any of the following matters; except that no adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action, except the review, approval, and amendment of the minutes of an executive session recorded pursuant to subparagraph (II) of paragraph (d.5) of subsection (2) of this section, shall occur at any executive session that is not open to the public:
[Emphasis added]

Why must the Arvada public be kept in the dark about what the city council is receiving "Legal Advice"? We can guess, of course, that the April 9, 2015, Colorado Court of Appeals ruling on the council secret ballots case is to be discussed. Why can't the law be followed and we be informed of the topic?

More curious is why we are not being told what is so secret that we are being kept from knowing the topic of "Security Arrangements". Perhaps we do not need to know the details, but it certainly sounds serious enough that we ought to know the subject matter. Here is the law:

(d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law;

It is reasonable to expect some "executive sessions" in a city the size of Arvada with a municipal government the size of Arvada's. However, it is also reasonable for the citizens to wonder why the simple demand of the law that there be "identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible."

It is our government, after all.

* * * 

Arvada for All the People supports reform of the use of 'executive sessions' by the Arvada city council: Action Agenda for Arvada

* * *

 

Victory for Open Gov't! Defeat for City Hall Secrecy!

In a hard hitting opinion today, Thursday, April 9, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals declared that the secret ballots taken by the Arvada city council to fill a vacant council seat did "... demonstrate an injury in fact to Weisfield’s legally protected interest under the Open Meetings Law."

"I'm glad that the court concluded what I always believed was true - namely that I have the right to know how my city council voted," said plaintiff, Russell Weisfield.

Weisfield, an Arvada citizen and District One resident, brought the lawsuit after Jerry Marks was chosen to fill the council seat vacated by the resignation of Rachel Zenzinger in November 2013. The city council took four rounds of secret ballots from among five finalist candidates before settling on Marks.

The appointment of Marks, then president of the Arvada Chamber of Commerce, created an all male city council in Arvada -- 51 percent of the city's residents are female -- and three of the five finalist applicants were women.

Here is the letter making a direct appeal to the city council to simply do the right thing and redo the selection process properly as required by the Open Meetings law: Men Rule Arvada City Council: The Cronyism Continues - January 13, 2014.

You can read all about the secret balloting here: Arvada Council's Secret Ballots Brings Lawsuit - January 30, 2014.

See documents and hear an audio recording of the applicant elimination process here: NOT "Transparent and Objective" - February 7, 2014.

In April 2014, the lawsuit was dismissed for lack of 'standing' by district court Judge Margie Enquist. You can read about that here: The Arvada Council's 'Secret Ballots' Scandal - April 3, 2014. It is this ruling that has been reversed by today's Appeal's Court decision.

The reaction from lawmakers, newspapers and Sunshine advocates to the dismissal was broad, bipartisan and definitive -- so much so that the state legislature passed and Gov. Hickenlooper signed into law a clarification that citizens do have a right to sue government to enforce Colorado's Open Meetings law. You can read about that here: New Law in Response to Arvada 'Secret Ballots' Scandal - June 6, 2014.

Elliot Fladen, attorney for Mr. Weisfield, declined to comment on today's Court of Appeals opinion since the case has been remanded back to the district court.

You can read the decision for yourself, here: Court of Appeals No. 14CA0807 Jefferson County Court No. 14CV30183 - ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS division IV Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB Plank and Ney, JJ.2015.04.09 Opinion

* * * 

Colorado Court of Appeals reverses ruling that dismissed
secret ballots lawsuit against Arvada
Jeffrey A. Roberts/Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition - April 9, 2015

Again? Another 'Exclusive' State of the City Address

There it is on the Arvada city government's web site:

The City of Arvada and the Arvada Chamber of Commerce would like to invite you to the annual State of the City Address and Community Breakfast to be held at the Arvada Center, 6901 Wadsworth Boulevard, Friday, April 17, 2015 from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. During the State of the City Address, Mayor Marc Williams will address current and planned projects and the policies of City Council.

Individual tickets are $15. Sponsorship tables and other group tables are available. For more information or to RSVP, call the Arvada Chamber of Commerce at 303-424-0313. [Annual State of the City Address] [Emphasis added]

What is it about openness, transparency and accessibility that some down at City Hall don't seem to comprehend?

How can it be that any citizen of Arvada would be excluded from an event so obviously concerning the public as the State of the City Address -- unless they fork out their hard-earned cash as "fees/admission" for the benefit of a private organization that they might or might not support?

It is our opinion that this function does qualify as a "public meeting":

Colorado Revised Statues 24-6-402(2)(b) All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times. [Emphasis added]

We went around about this last year:
Citizen Power Challenging Arvada Gov't on Open Meetings - April 15, 2014

And ... officials covered by the Open Meetings Law have been asked to attend:

Commissioner [Marc] Williams • April 17 will be the third annual State of Arvada address, at the Arvada Center and sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. Breakfast will be served at 7:30 am. All AURA Commissioners were encouraged to attend since AURA has contributed to most of the new developments in Arvada. [Citizen Notes - Arvada Urban Renewal Board Meeting - April 1, 2015]

What was pointed out last year expresses the same principle now:

Let's be clear, the Chamber of Commerce as a private organization can make whatever provisions it likes -- Arvada municipal government is bound by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. For Arvada government not to officially declare the Friday, April 17 [updated], so-called 'State of the City' event an open and public meeting will be to show blatant disregard for the law, and more importantly, disrespect for this city's citizens and the values of openness and honesty.