DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY,

COLORADO
7325 S. Potomac Street
Centennial, Colorado 80112
______________________________________________
M.A.K. INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff
v.

COURT USE ONLY

______________________

THE GLENDALE URBAN RENEWAL

AUTHORITY.

Case No.

Defendant
______________________________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiff: M.A.K. Investment Group,
LLC

Division:

Russell W. Kemp, Reg. # 30158

James R. Silvestro, Reg. # 43982
IRELAND STAPLETON PRYOR & PASCOE, P.C.
717 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: 303-628-2700; Fax: 303-623-2062
e-mail: rkemp@irelandstapleton.com
jsilvestro@irelandstapleton.com
Jody Harper Alderman, Atty Reg. # 24450
Carrie S. Bernstein, Atty Reg. # 34966
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC
101 University Blvd, Suite 350
Denver, Colorado 80206
Phone: 720-460-4200; Fax: 720-293-4712
e-mail: csb@ablawcolorado.com
jha@ablawcolorado.com
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)

Plaintiff M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC (MAK), by and through undersigned counsel,
and pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) hereby submits its Complaint Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)

1
2147260.2

against the Defendant the Glendale Urban Renewal Authority (the GURA) and states in
support thereof:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
MAK timely requests review of the GURAs quasi-judicial decision denying its
proposal to redevelop its property and instead selecting the redevelopment proposal of Wulfe &
Co., a Texas-based developer that has served as a paid consultant for the GURA for at least the
preceding year (Resolution No. 7, Series of 2015). The GURAs public hearing regarding this
decision was nothing more than a rubber stamp of the decision that the GURA previously
made behind closed doors. The GURA exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in
denying MAKs proposal and selecting Wulfe & Co.s proposal for each of the following
reasons:
(i)

The GURA was improperly biased in favor of Wulfe & Co. due to Wulfe
& Co.s preexisting relationship with the GURA and insider status, or, in
the alternative, the GURAs selection of the Wulfe & Co. proposal was
unlawfully tainted by the appearance of impropriety;

(ii)

Upon information and belief, the GURA paid Wulfe & Co. to prepare its
proposal;

(ii)

The GURAs selection process deprived MAK of due process by failing to

provide adequate advance notice and an opportunity to be heard;

(iii)

The GURAs selection process was based on an erroneous staff

presentation that misrepresented the MAK proposal;

(iv)

The GURAs selection was based upon an incomplete public record after
it improperly entered executive session; and

(v)

The GURA unlawfully selected the Wulfe & Co. proposal prior to its
public meeting and/or on evidence outside the public record.

2.
The GURAs unlawful and unconstitutional actions exceeded its jurisdiction and
constitute a per se abuse of discretion that should be overturned by this Court pursuant to its
authority under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).
THE PARTIES
3.
MAK is a Colorado limited liability company with its principal business address
at 550 S. Colorado Blvd., Glendale, Colorado 80246.

2
2147260.2

4.
MAK owns certain real property in Glendale, Colorado near the intersection of E.
Virginia Avenue and S. Colorado Blvd. (the MAK Property). The MAK Property is located
within an area that the GURA has designated as the Riverwalk Urban Renewal Area, as
explained below.
5.
GURA is an urban renewal authority, established and operating pursuant to
Colorado law, in particular the provisions of section 31-25-104, C.R.S. The GURA is a
subdivision of the municipal government of Glendale, Colorado, which is located within
Arapahoe County.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), this Court is vested with the authority to review
the judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of any governmental body or officer.
7.
Venue is proper before this Court because the GURA is a subdivision of the
municipal government of Glendale, Colorado, which is located within Arapahoe County,
Colorado.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8.
The Glendale City Council approved the adoption of the Glendale Urban
Renewal Plan in August 2004. The alleged purpose of the Glendale Urban Renewal Plan was
to remediate blight within certain designated portions of Glendale referred to as the Original
Urban Renewal Area.
9.
Nearly a decade later, in May 2013, the Glendale City Council amended the
Glendale Urban Renewal Plan to remove certain parcels from the Original Urban Renewal
Area where blight had allegedly been remediated.
10.
Also in May 2013, the Glendale City Council redesignated the remaining parcels
contained within the Original Urban Renewal Area (referred to as the Riverwalk Urban
Renewal Area) as allegedly blighted and appropriate for urban renewal.
11.
The MAK Property is located within the area that the Glendale City Council
designated as the Riverwalk Urban Renewal Area.
12.
On January 26, 2015, without any advance notice to landowners within the
Riverwalk Urban Renewal Area, the GURA1 sent a letter to landowners and tenants within the

Prior to March 30, 2015, the GURA was named the Glendale Economic Redevelopment Authority and referred to
itself using GERA as an acronym for this earlier incarnation. For convenience, MAK refers to the GURA at all
times as the GURA regardless of the timing of this name change.

3
2147260.2

Riverwalk Urban Renewal Area seeking redevelopment proposals for the Riverwalk Urban
Renewal Area allegedly in accordance with section 31-25-105.5, C.R.S.2
13.
The GURAs January 26, 2015 letter required all redevelopment proposals to be
submitted by no later than March 12, 201545 days after notice was first sent. The letter did
not provide for submitters to make a public presentation to the GURA, have a meeting with the
GURA, or to otherwise respond to any reactions, comments, or questions of the GURA.
14.

The GURA only received two proposals on or before its March 12, 2015 deadline.

15.
MAK submitted a proposal (the MAK Proposal). MAK was the only
landowner within the Riverwalk Urban Renewal Authority that submitted a proposal.
16.
Proposal).
17.

The only other proposal was submitted by Wulfe & Co. (the Wulfe & Co.

Upon information and belief, Wulfe & Co. is a Houston, Texas developer.

18.
Upon information and belief, the GURA has been paying Wulfe & Co. a monthly
retainer to serve as a development consultant for approximately the past eighteen months.
19.
Upon information and belief, the GURA has not publicly disclosed the monthly
fee that it has paid to Wulfe & Co.
20.
Upon information and belief, the GURA has not publicly disclosed its financial
relationship with Wulfe & Co., or the financial relationship between any individual members of
the GURA with Wulfe & Co., and the GURA has never publicly disclosed the terms of any
contract with Wulfe & Co.
21.
Upon information and belief, the GURA, the Glendale City Council, or an
authorized agent of the GURA and/or the Glendale City Counsel maintains a website at
www.glendale180.com to post updates regarding the redevelopment of the Riverwalk Urban
Renewal Area.
22.
On or before March 25, 2015, www.glendale180.com was updated to include an
image that was contained within the Wulfe & Co. Proposal.
23.
The GURA set a meeting for March 30, 2015, to select a redevelopment proposal
for the Riverwalk Urban Renewal Area (the March 30, 2015 GURA Meeting).

The letter also cited to section 31-25-106, C.R.S., but this section is inapplicable to the action taken by the GURA
subsequent to this letter as that action did not involve the transfer of land previously acquired by the GURA to a
third-party.

4
2147260.2

24.
Immediately prior to the March 30, 2015 GURA Meeting, the GURA held a
public study session in which the MAK Proposal and the Wulfe & Co. Proposal were formally
presented to the GURA by Glendale City Council staffers and the GURAs legal counsel.
25.
Upon information and belief, the meeting room where the study session was held
included several largescale versions of the renderings contained within the Wulfe & Co.
Proposal.
26.
Upon information and belief, at this study session, members of the GURA
inquired as to the preexisting relationship between the GURA and Wulfe & Co. and expressed
concern that this relationship might give rise to grounds for a grievance by MAK.
27.
At the commencement of the March 30, 2015 GURA Meeting, the GURA
Chairman, Mayor Mike Dunafon, added an item 10(a) to the March 30, 2015 GURA Meeting
agenda to discuss the timeline for carrying out a redevelopment proposal.
28.
After ratifying the previous meetings minutes, the GURA moved to go into
executive session.
29.
Upon information and belief, the GURA failed to comply with Colorado law,
C.R.S. 24-6-402(4), in convening the executive session.
30.
Upon information and belief, the executive session was not convened for the sole
purpose of considering any of the matters set forth in section 24-6-402(4)(a) (h), C.R.S.
31.
All members of the public were asked to leave the meeting room during the
executive session.
32.
The GURAs March 30, 2015 executive session, which was closed to the general
public, included at least four individuals that were neither members/staff of the GURA nor
attorneys representing the GURA. Upon information and belief, these individuals included a
Glendale police officer, the attorney for the Glendale City Council, and two Glendale City
Council staffers.
33.
Following the executive session and several other matters, the GURA addressed
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2015, and the selection of a redevelopment proposal for the
Riverwalk Urban Renewal Area.
34.
Prior to selecting a proposal, the GURA heard a presentation from a GURA
staffer evaluating the two proposals and recommending the Wulfe & Co. Proposal.
35.
The staffers presentation contained a material misrepresentation with regards to
the MAK Proposal by presenting the percentage of each type of land use contained within the

5
2147260.2

MAK Proposal as a percentage of the total land use under the MAK Proposal, including the land
set aside for parking under the MAK Proposal. In contrast, when the staffer presented the
percentage of each type of land use contained within the Wulfe & Co. Proposal, he only
considered the percentage of each use compared to the total non-parking uses under the Wulfe &
Co. Proposal. The result of this error was to drastically misrepresent the percentage of certain
land uses within the MAK Proposal in comparison with the Wulfe & Co. Proposal.
36.
The GURA did not permit MAK to make a presentation regarding the proposals
and there was no opportunity for MAK to address the GURAs comments, questions, or
concerns.
37.
Upon information and belief, Wulfe & Co. had numerous meetings with members
of the GURA and the GURA staff before and after the March 30, 2015 Meeting.
38.
Upon information and belief, there were no representatives from Wulfe & Co.
present at the March 30, 2015 GURA Meeting.
39.
The GURA adopted Resolution No. 7, Series of 2015, selecting the Wulfe & Co.
proposal for the redevelopment of the Riverwalk Urban Renewal Plan Area and authorizing
GURA staff to exclusively negotiate with Wulfe & Co. for the redevelopment of the site.
40.
By adopting Resolution No.7, Series of 2015, and selecting the Wulfe & Co.
Proposal, the GURA set in motion a $178 million private redevelopment of the Riverwalk
Urban Renewal Area by a private third-party, Wulfe & Co., which will enable this third-party
developer to benefit from the condemnation power of the GURA. MAK will now be forced to
sell its property against its will for the benefit of a private developer.
41.
Following the GURAs adoption of Resolution No.7, Series of 2015, the GURA
addressed agenda item 10(a), which was added at the last minute at the outset of the meeting.
42.
Agenda item 10(a) was a presentation by a GURA staffer regarding the timing of
the Wulfe & Co. proposal, including negotiations, property acquisition, planning, and
construction. At the beginning of her presentation, the GURA staffer remarked that the GURA
asked to add agenda item 10(a) to the meeting agenda at the outset of the meeting because the
GURA wanted to know about timing after it selected the Wulfe & Co. Proposal. The staff
members statement strongly implied that the GURA knew that it would select the Wulfe & Co.
Proposal before the March 30, 2015 GURA Meeting.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Review of Resolution No. 7, Series of 2015, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4))
43.

MAK incorporates all of the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein.

6
2147260.2

44.
In adopting Resolution No. 7, Series of 2015, the GURA unlawfully denied
MAKs proposal for redevelopment of its private property and improperly selected the Wulfe &
Co. Proposal.
45.
In denying the MAK Proposal and selecting the Wulfe & Co. Proposal, the
GURA exercised a quasi-judicial function.
46.
The GURA exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in denying the
MAK Proposal and selecting the Wulfe & Co. Proposal because:
(i)

The GURA was improperly biased in favor of Wulfe & Co. due to Wulfe
& Co.s preexisting relationship with the GURA and insider status, or, in
the alternative, the GURAs selection of the Wulfe & Co. Proposal was
unlawfully tainted by the appearance of impropriety;

(ii)

Upon information and belief, the GURA paid Wulfe & Co. to prepare its
proposal;

(iii)

The GURAs selection process deprived MAK of due process by failing to

provide adequate advance notice and an opportunity to be heard;

(iv)

The GURAs selection process was based on an erroneous staff

presentation that misrepresented the MAK Proposal;

(v)

The GURAs selection was based upon an incomplete public record after
it improperly entered executive session; and

(vi)

The GURA unlawfully selected the Wulfe & Co. proposal prior to its
public meeting and/or on evidence outside the public record.

See generally Churchill v. Univ. of Colo. at Boulder, 2012 CO 54, 285 P.3d 986 (Colo. 2012);
Hewitt v. State Civil Serv. Comm., 167 P.2d 961, 963 (Colo. 1946); Gallegos v. Garcia, 155 P.3d
405 (Colo. App. 2006); Venard v. Dept. of Corr., 72 P.3d 446 (Colo. App. 2003).
47.
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), MAK is entitled to a review of the GURAs
denial of the MAK Proposal and an order reversing that decision.
48.
GURA.
49.

MAK has suffered and will continue to suffer harm as a result of the actions of the

MAK has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy provided by law.

7
2147260.2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC, respectfully requests this

Court enter an Order:
(a)

Determining that the Defendant The Glendale Urban Renewal Authority

exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by adopting Resolution
No. 7, Series of 2015, and, therefore, that MAK is entitled to entry of an
order reversing that decision and requiring an unbiased, public hearing on
the MAK Proposal, including a full and fair opportunity for MAK to
publicly present the MAK Proposal to the GURA in accordance with basic
notions of due process.

(b)

Awarding MAK its reasonable costs and attorneys fees in bringing this
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action for review of the GURAs unlawful and
unconstitutional actions.

(c)

Granting MAK such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper under the circumstances.

8
2147260.2

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of April, 2015.

IRELAND STAPLETON PRYOR & PASCOE, PC &
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC
This document is e-filed per C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-26.

/S/ James Silvestro__________________________

Russell W. Kemp, Reg. # 30158
James R. Silvestro, Reg. # 43982
IRELAND STAPLETON PRYOR & PASCOE, PC
717 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: 303-628-2700; Fax: 303-623-2062
e-mail: rkemp@irelandstapleton.com
jsilvestro@irelandstapleton.com
Jody Harper Alderman, Atty Reg. # 24450
Carrie S. Bernstein, Atty Reg. # 34966
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC
101 University Blvd, Suite 350
Denver, Colorado 80206
Phone: 720-460-4200; Fax: 720-293-4712
e-mail: csb@ablawcolorado.com
jha@ablawcolorado.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF M.A.K.
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC

Plaintiffs Address:
550 S. Colorado Blvd.
Glendale, Colorado 80246

9
2147260.2