HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV2867 - FORT COLLINS MENNONITE FELLOWSHIP AND STEVE RAMER V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ET AL - 066 - CITY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT3850796.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW
FORT COLLINS MENNONITE FELLOWSHIP, and
STEVE RAMER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a home rule municipality, et. al.
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM DEFENDANTS THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS AND THE FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
______________________________________________________________________
Defendants the City of Fort Collins and the City of Fort Collins City Council, by
and through their counsel, Andrew D. Ringel, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., hereby
respectfully submit this Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Request for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. Defendants the City of Fort Collins and the City of Fort Collins City Council
(“Defendants”) admit Plaintiffs Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship and Steve Ramer
(“Plaintiffs”) applied for and received the approval of the City Council to operate a locker
program on Plaintiff Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship’s (“Fellowship”) property to assist
homeless persons. Defendants admit the Planning and Zoning Board initially approved
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29
2
3850796.1
the locker program. Defendants affirmatively state the approval by the Planning and
Zoning Board in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny all allegations in
paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Request for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief (“Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint”) inconsistent therewith.
Defendants admit an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision was initiated.
Defendants affirmatively state the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision
in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny all allegations in paragraph 1 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants admit the City
Council considered the appeal. Defendants admit the City Council imposed reasonable
and appropriate conditions on the locker program that did not violate the Plaintiffs’
statutory or common law rights under either federal or Colorado law. Defendants deny
the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
2. Defendants admit Plaintiffs attempt claims against the Defendants
pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
the Colorado Constitution, Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 57, and Colorado Rule of
Civil Procedure 106(a)(4). Defendants deny Plaintiffs state any cognizable claim upon
which relief may be granted against the Defendants. Defendants deny Plaintiffs are
entitled to any of the relief sought in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 29
3
3850796.1
PARTIES AND PROPERTY
3. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation the Fellowship is a Colorado nonprofit corporation
and therefore deny same. Defendants state whether the Fellowship is a “religious
assembly or institution” within the meaning of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) presents a question of law not requiring a
response from the Defendants. To any extent a response is deemed required, the
allegation is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
4. Defendants admit upon information and belief Plaintiff Steve Ramer is the
Pastor of the Fellowship.
5. Defendants admit the Fellowship owns property located at 300 East Oak
Street in the City of Fort Collins. Defendants admit the Plaintiffs applied for the ability to
operate a locker program for homeless persons on the Fellowship’s property.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
6. Defendants admit the City of Fort Collins is a home rule municipality under
Colorado law. Defendants state whether the City qualifies as a “government” within the
meaning of RLUIPA or a “person acting under color of state law” within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 present questions of law not requiring responses from the
Defendants. To any extent responses are deemed required, the allegations are denied.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 29
4
3850796.1
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
7. Defendants admit the City Council of the City of Fort Collins is the
governing body of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the Charter of the City of Fort
Collins and applicable Colorado law. Defendants state whether the City Council
qualifies as a “government” within the meaning of RLUIPA or a “person acting under
color of state law” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 present questions of law not
requiring responses from the Defendants. To any extent responses are deemed
required, the allegations are denied. Defendants admit the City Council is authorized to
consider appeals of decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
8. Defendants affirmatively state the appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Board’s decision in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny all allegations in
paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9-10. Defendants admit this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendants deny
the remaining allegations in paragraphs 9-10 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
11. Defendants admit venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391. Defendants deny all the remaining allegations in paragraph 11 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 29
5
3850796.1
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Fellowship’s Religious Practice
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs.
12-23. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 12-23 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint and therefore deny same.
The City’s Past Treatment of People Experiencing
Homelessness and the Pilot Locker Program
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs.
24. Defendants state the Appropriate Use of Public Facilities Ordinance
adopted by the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny all
allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
therewith. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
25. Defendants admit there was public debate and discussion regarding the
Appropriate Use of Public Facilities Ordinance adopted by the City Council. Defendants
deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
26-28. Defendants admit a Service Agreement was entered into on September
29, 2017. Defendants state the Service Agreement in its entirety speaks for itself.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 29
6
3850796.1
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 26-28 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in
paragraphs 26-28 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
29. Defendants admit the City Council determined not to authorize the use of
City funds for the Service Agreement. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
The Fellowship Proceeds With the Locker Program
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs.
30. Defendants admit City staff discussed the program for lockers for
homeless persons with representatives of the Fellowship. Defendants affirmatively
state City staff provided information to representatives of the Fellowship concerning how
the program for lockers for homeless persons could be approved by the City if it
complied with applicable City zoning regulations. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
31-33. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 31-33 of the Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint and therefore deny same.
34. Defendants state the April 18, 2018, letter from the City’s Planning,
Development and Transportation Department to the Fellowship in its entirety speaks for
itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 29
7
3850796.1
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants state the Minor Amendment process
provided by the City’s Land Use Code, § 2.2.10 applied to the lockers installed on the
Fellowship’s property. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 34 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
35. Defendants admit the Fellowship submitted a Minor Amendment
application to the City. Defendants state the Minor Amendment application in its
entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 35 of the
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
36. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
37. Defendants deny the allegations in the first two sentences of paragraph 37
of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the third sentence of
paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and therefore deny same.
The City’s Inconsistent Application of the Minor Amendment Process
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs. Defendants specifically
deny the City has inconsistently applied the Minor Amendment process to the Plaintiffs
or otherwise.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 29
8
3850796.1
38. Defendants admit the City’s Land Use Code contains zoning regulations.
Defendants state the entirety of the City’s Land Use Code whether attached to the
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 3 or not in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 38 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
39-47. Defendants admit the City’s Land Use Code contains provisions governing
a Minor Amendment process. Defendants state the entirety of the City’s Land Use
Code applicable to the Minor Amendment process, whether provided in § 2.2.10 or
otherwise, in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraphs 39-47 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraphs 39-47 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
48. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
49. Defendants state Exhibit 4 in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants
deny the allegations in paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
50. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 50 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence of
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 29
9
3850796.1
paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and therefore deny same.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
51. Defendants admit a Minor Amendment application referred to the Planning
and Zoning Board requires notice and a public hearing under the City’s Land Use Code.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
52. Defendants state any letter from City Attorney Carrie Daggett dated July 9,
2018, in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 52
of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
53. Defendants state the information on the City’s website in its entirety
speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations
in paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
54. Defendants admit some Minor Amendment applications are approved
administratively and some Minor Amendment applications are approved through review
and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board subject to the review of the City
Council. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 29
10
3850796.1
The City Improperly and In a Discriminatory Manner Applied
the Minor Amendment Process to the Fellowship
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs. Defendants specifically
deny the City has improperly and in a discriminatory manner applied the minor
amendment process to the Plaintiffs or otherwise.
55-59. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 55-59 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint either directly or because the allegations attempt to apply current
Land Use Code terminology to land use and zoning decisions upon information and
belief occurring long before the adoption of the current Land Use Code.
60-61. Defendants state any email dated May 31, 2018, from City Attorney
Daggett in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs
60-61 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
specifically deny the May 31, 2018, email from City Attorney Daggett constitutes
admissible evidence appropriate for consideration by the Court. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraphs 60-61 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
62. Defendants state the statements made at the Planning and Zoning Board
work session on July 13, 2018, in their entirety by City staff speak for themselves.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 62 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 29
11
3850796.1
63. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
64. Defendants admit the City reviewed the Fellowship’s application under the
Minor Amendment process. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph
64 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
65. Defendants admit the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department
referred the Fellowship’s application for a Minor Amendment to the Planning and Zoning
Board for its consideration. Defendants admit the public hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Board was initially scheduled for May 31, 2018. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
66. Defendants state the City staff report prepared in advance of the
scheduled May 31, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board meeting to the Board in its
entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
67. Defendants admit during the staff review process of the Fellowship’s Minor
Amendment application there was discussion with Plaintiff Ramer of an apparent
willingness to install a security camera and lighting as part of the locker program for
homeless persons. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 67 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
68. Defendants state the City staff report prepared in advance of the
scheduled May 31, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board meeting to the Board in its
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 29
12
3850796.1
entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations in paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
69. Defendants admit the City’s Land Use Code contains provisions governing
a Minor Amendment process. Defendants state the entirety of the City’s Land Use
Code applicable to the Minor Amendment process, whether provided in § 2.2.10 or
otherwise, in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph
69 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
70. Defendants state any email from Deputy City Manager Jeff Mihelich to
Plaintiff Ramer dated May 30, 2018, in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny
the allegations in paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
therewith. Defendants admit the May 31, 2018, hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Board was rescheduled. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 70 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
71. Defendants deny Deputy City Manager Mihelich reviewed the Fellowship’s
Minor Amendment application or any other Minor Amendment application as a
decisionmaker under the City’s Land Use Code. Any review by Deputy City Manager
Mihelich of documents associated with the Minor Amendment application was within his
authority as Deputy City Manager. Defendants admit the City’s Land Use Code
contains provisions governing a Minor Amendment process. Defendants state the
entirety of the City’s Land Use Code applicable to the Minor Amendment process,
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 29
13
3850796.1
whether provided in § 2.2.10 or otherwise, in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants
deny the allegations in paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
72-73. Defendants state the City staff report prepared in advance of the July 19,
2018, Planning and Zoning Board meeting to the Board in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 72-73 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraphs 72-73 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
74. Defendants admit the Planning and Zoning Board considered the
Fellowship’s Minor Amendment application at a public hearing held on July 19, 2018.
Defendants state the entire record of the July 19, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board
proceedings in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
admit Plaintiff Ramer and other representatives of the Fellowship spoke at the Planning
and Zoning Board hearing in support of the Minor Amendment application. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
75. Defendants admit the Planning and Zoning Board considered the
Fellowship’s Minor Amendment application at a public hearing held on July 19, 2018.
Defendants state the entire record of the July 19, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board
proceedings in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 29
14
3850796.1
admit several neighbors of the Fellowship’s property spoke at the Planning and Zoning
Board hearing in opposition to the Minor Amendment application. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
76. Defendants admit the Planning and Zoning Board considered the
Fellowship’s Minor Amendment application at a public hearing held on July 19, 2018.
Defendants state the entire record of the July 19, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board
proceedings in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
admit the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Minor Amendment application with
conditions. Defendants state the approval of the Minor Amendment application by the
Planning and Zoning Board in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the
allegations in paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
77. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 77 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore deny same.
Neighbors Appeal the PZB’s Approval
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 29
15
3850796.1
78. Defendants admit a Notice of Appeal was filed on August 2, 2018, of the
Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment application.
Defendants state the Notice of Appeal in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny
the allegations in paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
79. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
80-81. Defendants admit the City’s Land Use Code contains provisions governing
appeals of Planning and Zoning Board decisions. Defendants state the entirety of the
City’s Land Use Code applicable to appeals of Planning and Zoning Board decisions,
whether provided in § 2-46 and § 2-48 or otherwise, in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 80-81 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraphs 80-81 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
82. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 29
16
3850796.1
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
admit upon information and belief some of the named individual defendants appeared
and identified themselves as “parties-in-interest” at the hearing before City Council.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
83. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 83 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
state any statement by Mayor Wade Troxell during the hearing in its entirety speaks for
itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 83 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 83 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
84. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 84 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
85. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 29
17
3850796.1
admit various individuals provided statements to the City Council during the October 9,
2018, hearing including City staff, counsel, Plaintiff Ramer, and counsel for the
Fellowship. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint.
86. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
state any question by Councilor Ray Martinez and any response to such a question by
counsel for the Fellowship during the hearing in their entirety speak for themselves.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 86 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
87. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
state any question by Councilor Martinez and any response to such a question by
Plaintiff Ramer during the hearing in their entirety speak for themselves. Defendants
deny the allegations in paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 29
18
3850796.1
therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
88. Defendants admit a public hearing was held before the City Council on the
appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application on October 9, 2018. Defendants state the record of the proceedings before
the City Council in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in
paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants
state any statement by Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak during the hearing in its entirety
speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations
in paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
89. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 89 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore deny same.
90. Defendants admit the City Council approved the Minor Amendment
application with conditions. Defendants state Resolution 2018-104 in its entirety speaks
for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
91. Defendants admit the City Council’s approval of the Minor Amendment
application with conditions was a quasi-judicial decision by the City Council.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 29
19
3850796.1
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 91 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
The Conditions of Approval are Discriminatory
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs. Defendants deny the
conditions on approval of the Minor Amendment application by the City Council are
discriminatory.
92-97. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 92-97 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint and therefore deny same.
Locker Program Shut Down
Defendants note Defendants utilize the above heading because it is used by the
Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and do not necessarily agree with or
adopt this heading or characterization made by the Plaintiffs.
98-105. Defendants state the City Council Resolution 2018-104 speaks for
itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 98-105 inconsistent therewith.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraphs 98-105 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
106-107. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 106-107 and therefore deny
same.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 29
20
3850796.1
108. Defendants state the City Council Resolution 2018-104 speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 108 inconsistent therewith. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraphs 108 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
109-111. Defendants state any November 7, 2018, notice purportedly
provided pursuant to the Colorado Regulatory Impairment of Property Rights Act,
C.R.S. §§ 29-20-201 et seq. by the Plaintiffs to the City in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 109-111 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants state the entirety of C.R.S. § 29-20-
203(2) and all other relevant statutory provisions of Colorado law in their entirety speak
for themselves. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 109-111 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations in paragraphs 109-111 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment, C.R.C.P Rule 57—Against City Defendants)
112. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-111 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
112 as if fully set forth herein.
113-118. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 113-118 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 29
21
3850796.1
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Abuse of Discretion and Exceeding Jurisdiction,
Colo. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(4)—Against All Defendants)
119. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-118 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
119 as if fully set forth herein.
120. Defendants admit the Planning and Zoning Board acted in a quasi-judicial
capacity in considering the Minor Amendment application. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs’’ First Amended Complaint.
121. Defendants admit the City Council acted in a quasi-judicial capacity in
considering the appeal of the approval of the Minor Amendment application by the
Planning and Zoning Board. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph
121 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
122. Defendants admit there was an appeal of the approval of by Minor
Amendment application by the Planning and Zoning Board. Defendants state the
appeal in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph
122 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 122 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
123. Defendants state Colo. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(4) in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants state the relief available pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(4) presents a
legal determination not requiring a response from the Defendants. To any extent a
response is deemed required, the allegations are denied. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 123 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 29
22
3850796.1
124. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 124 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
125. Defendants state C.R.S. § 29-20-203(2) in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 125 inconsistent therewith. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 125 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
126-127. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 126-127 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination in Violation of RLUIPA,
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2)—Against City Defendants)
128. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-127 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
128 as if fully set forth herein.
129. Defendants state 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2) in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 129 inconsistent therewith. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 129 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
130-133. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 130-133 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Treating a Religious Assembly on Less Than Equal Terms in Violation
of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2)—Against City Defendants)
134. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-133 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
134 as if fully set forth herein.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 29
23
3850796.1
135. Defendants state 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1) in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 135 inconsistent therewith. Defendants
deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 135 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
136-138. Defendants deny the Plaintiffs’ allegations in paragraphs 136-138
of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Imposition of a Substantial Burden in Violation of
RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)—Against City Defendants)
139. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-138 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
139 as if fully set forth herein.
140-141. Defendants state 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) in its entirety speaks for
itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 140-141 inconsistent therewith.
Defendants state the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) presents a determination
of law not requiring a response from the Defendants. To any extent a response is
deemed required, the allegations are denied. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations in paragraphs 140-141 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
142-146. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 142-146 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 29
24
3850796.1
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unconstitutional Vagueness in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment
Right to Due Process, 42 U.S.C. § 1983—Against City Defendants)
147. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-146 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
147 as if fully set forth herein.
148. Defendants state the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
in its entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 148
inconsistent therewith. Defendants state the applicability of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment presents a determination of law not requiring a response
from the Defendants. To any extent a response is deemed required, the allegations are
denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 148 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
149-150. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 149-150 of
Plaintiffs’’ First Amended Complaint.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unconstitutional Vagueness in Violation of Right to Due Process,
Art. II, § 25, of the Colorado Constitution-Against City Defendants)
151. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-150 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
151 as if fully set forth herein.
152. Defendants state Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution in its
entirety speaks for itself. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 152 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint inconsistent therewith. Defendants state the applicable of
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 29
25
3850796.1
Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution presents a determination of law not
requiring a response from the Defendants. To any extent a response is deemed
required, the allegations are denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 152 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
153-154. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 153-154 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Imposing Discriminatory Conditions Not Based Upon Duly Adopted or Sufficiently
Specific Standards in Violation of RIPRA—Against City Defendants)
155. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all their responses to the
allegations in paragraphs 1-154 above as their response to the allegations in paragraph
155 as if fully set forth herein.
156. Defendants state C.R.S. § 29-20-203(2) in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 156 inconsistent therewith. Defendants
state the applicability of C.R.S. § 29-20-203(2) presents a determination of law not
requiring a response from the Defendants. To any extent a response is deemed
required, the allegations are denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 156 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
157. Defendants state C.R.S. § 29-20-204(2) in its entirety speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 157 inconsistent therewith. Defendants
state the applicability of C.R.S. § 29-20-204(2) presents a determination of law not
requiring a response from the Defendants. To any extent a response is deemed
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 29
26
3850796.1
required, the allegations are denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 157 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
158-161. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 158-161 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Defendants deny all the allegations following the heading “Prayer for Relief” on
page 28 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint including all the allegations in
subparagraphs (A) through (D). Defendants deny Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the
relief sought in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendants deny each and every allegation in Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint not specifically admitted in this Answer.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted against Defendants.
2. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims do not rise to the level of constitutional,
statutory or common law violations sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted against Defendants.
3. Defendants actions were taken for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons
within the authority of the Defendants.
4. Defendants acted in conformity with all constitutional, statutory, and
common law requirements of federal and Colorado law.
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 29
27
3850796.1
5. The conditions imposed by the City Council in approving the Minor
Amendment application serve important and legitimate governmental objectives, are not
discriminatory or improper, and do not substantially burden any exercise of religion by
the Plaintiffs.
6. The City Council’s decision was a quasi-judicial decision and therefore the
statements any single member of City Council are not and cannot be attributed to the
City Council as a whole.
7. The City Council’s decision was supported by competent evidence in the
record before the City Council and therefore the City Council did not abuse its discretion
or exceed its jurisdiction.
8. Plaintiffs have not and cannot meet all the requirements for either the
elements of their claims or the declaratory and injunctive relief requested by the
Plaintiffs.
9. Some of the Plaintiffs’ allegations may be barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.
10. Defendants specifically reserve the right to amend their Answer to include
additional defenses and affirmative defenses and/or delete defenses and affirmative
defenses which have become applicable or non-applicable upon completion of
additional discovery.
WHEREFORE, having answered the allegations contained in the Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint and Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendants the
City of Fort Collins and the City of Fort Collins City Council respectfully request the
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 29
28
3850796.1
Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety be dismissed with prejudice, and for all other and
further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate pursuant to applicable federal and
Colorado law.
Dated this 15th
day of March, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andrew D. Ringel
Andrew D. Ringel, Esq.
HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.
1001 Seventeenth St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
ringela@hallevans.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CITY
COUNCIL
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 29
29
3850796.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I hereby certify that on this 15th
day of March, 2019, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/EFC system which will send notification
of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
Brian J. Connolly, Esq.
bconnolly@ottenjohnson.com
Thomas Macdonald, Esq.
mac@ottenjohnson.com
Andrew L.W. Peters, Esq.
apeters@ottenjohnson.com
David A. Brewster, Esq.
dbrewster@ottenjohnson.com
s/ Nicole Marion, legal assistant to
Andrew D. Ringel, Esq.
HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.
1001 Seventeenth St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
ringela@hallevans.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CITY
COUNCIL
Case 1:18-cv-02867-MSK-NYW Document 66 Filed 03/15/19 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 29