Ruling clears obstacle to USOC deal
A judge today tossed out a lawsuit by a local attorney who challenged the legality of the financing package aimed at keeping the U.S. Olympic Committee in Colorado Springs.
Fourth Judicial District Judge Scott Sells dismissed the complaint by Lindsay E. Fischer and found that the city does not have to hold an election before issuing $38 million in certificates of participation.
In a six-page decision, Sells said the financing plan does not violate either the state constitution or the city charter.
The decision clears the way for city officials to move ahead with the financing plan, which was hammered out after the original 2008 agreement fell apart and faced a deadline on Friday.
The city needs the money to move ahead with the plan to locate the USOC headquarters in a renovated building at 27 S. Tejon St.
Last month, city attorneys said Fischer’s lawsuit had prevented the city from obtaining insurance or a rating on the COPs and that they were likely to miss the Friday deadline to offer them to investors.
City officials welcomed the ruling.
“We’re very pleased with the outcome and hope this will be the last major hurdle we’ll have on our way to selling the COPs,” city spokeswoman Sue Skiffington-Blumberg said.
The new contract between the city and the USOC called for the city to issue the COPs by Friday, but Skiffington-Blumberg said it also provides for some wiggle room.
“There’s a window in time to work with, and we’re going to work as rapidly as we can,” she said, adding the city looks forward to the USOC “finally” moving into the building.
Fischer had argued that the financing plan was flawed because it relied upon using the Police Operations Center and Fire Station No. 8 as collateral for the deal. He claimed the COPs were really more like a bond, which would require voter approval.
Under the plan, the city will sell both buildings to the Colorado Springs Public Facilities Authority and then lease them back. The Authority in turn would issue the certificates of deposit based upon that rental revenue.
Fischer maintained those two buildings are so essential to the city that no future city council would be in a position politically to lose them by failing to make the annual rental payments.
Sells rejected this argument, noting that because the city has the option not to make those payments in future years, it is not a bond and does not require an election.
“I’m flabbergasted,” Fischer said. “I’m wondering whether to make an appeal. The cost, the amount of work the uncertainty, are all daunting.”
He contends the judge’s decision gives the city the ability to mortgage any of its assets without first going to the voters.
“The opportunity for corruption is so obvious,” he stated in an e-mail. “Now it is the USOC. Tomorrow who knows?”
Sells’ ruling came one day after Fischer had filed a 25-page brief in which he argued that the issues in the case were so complex that a quick decision by the judge would violate due process.
But the judge countered that in the lawsuit, Fischer stated that he “desires to accommodate the City in any reasonable way to accelerate the disposition of this case.”
Sells stated: “The Court finds that the Plaintiff (Fischer) requested a willingness for a speedy resolution of a narrow legal issue and cannot now complain that the Court agrees with him that the issue is narrow and should be quickly resolved.”
Gazetter reporter Daniel Chacón contributed to this story.
