CPN Metro District Board Files Lawsuit Against City’s Urban Renewal Authority

“Blight” Designations Raise Concern

With unanimous support of its five-member publicly elected Board of Directors, Metro District President Steve Labossiere downplayed the lawsuit’s significance and expressed the Board’s willingness to work directly with the Mayor and City Council to resolve issues without litigation.

Citing several well-established legal processes and public procedures that the City Council failed to follow in forming its Urban Renewal Authority (URA), the Metro District filed the lawsuit in District Court challenging the City’s legal formation of the URA. The Metro District Board believes the lawsuit is a positive, temporary placeholder that will lead the Metro District and the City to negotiate with one another in good faith to secure a win/win solution the people of Castle Pines North expect and deserve.

“While City Council’s actions raise substantive legal and financial questions for the Metro District and the people we serve, I think it’s fair to say the Board views its decision to file a legal protest as very low-key,” said Labossiere. “The URA approved its final Urban Renewal Plan (URP), including final URP boundaries, just last week. Our staff needs time to identify and analyze the legal and financial consequences of the URA and its URP on the Metro District. In the event we unsuccessfully negotiate with the City, this lawsuit merely preserves our ability to protect our public interest.”

On April 27, 2010, City Council members voted to appoint themselves as URA Commissioners. They also voted to approve a URP, the boundaries of which include the Metro District’s headquarters, the CPN Community Center and the surrounding park/open space parcels.

Mayor Jeffrey Huff was the lone dissenting vote against both the URA and its URP.

State law allows the Metro District, and other parties with vested interests, a 30-day legal protest period in which to contest the URA and any associated “blight” designations imbedded in the URA’s final URP.

Even as the Metro District Board expressed its willingness to work with the City, it requested that City Council members be prepared to answer questions during a proposed meeting involving Metro District Board and City Council representatives. For example:

Why did City Council members intentionally include the Metro District’s headquarters, the CPN Community Center and the surrounding park/open space parcels in its final URP?

What are the City’s specific proposed development plans for each “blighted area” within the Metro District’s service area?

” Frankly, we are somewhat puzzled that the City’s approval of the URA fails to publicly disclose its specific development plans and goals for our headquarters and the CPN Community Center, as well as the adjacent park/open space parcels,” said Metro District Vice President Dwight Zemp. “We intend to respectfully ask the City to publicly disclose its plans for these assets. Obviously, our parks and open spaces do not constitute ‘blighted areas.’ That term inaccurately and irresponsibly describes Metro District assets. However, until we learn otherwise, we must assume the City made an unfortunate, but easily rectifiable mistake.”

Separate and apart from the Metro District’s lawsuit, Douglas County and Happy Canyon Homeowner’s Association each filed a lawsuit in District Court challenging the City’s formation of the URA.

For more information on the Metro District’s lawsuit, please contact Metro District Board President Steve Labossiere.