_UPDATE: A federal judge ruled in favor of the city in the Opus development issue, according to [reporting](http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/federal-judge-favors-city-in-ruling-on-opus-lawsuit/article_624902c8-60b5-11e5-ad0b-174fb2a4c642.html) done by the Columbia Missourian on Sept. 21. District Judge Nanette Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri said the defendants did not violate the plaintiffs’ civil rights during the petition process against the Opus Group._
Columbia resident Pam Cooper grows pounds of tomatoes every summer. There are always leftovers, so she set up shop in her garage a few weeks ago and exchanged one pound bags of her crop for $10 donations.
The money she raised went to Repeal 6214, a community group of about 30 individuals that came together in response to Columbia city Ordinance 62-14 and leads the opposition to the Opus project. She said she raised about $90.
Ordinance 62-14 stated that in exchange for $450,000 toward sewer damage repairs and $30,680 worth of city bus passes, the Opus Group would be able to build a six-story, 256-bedroom student housing complex downtown.
City Manager Mike Matthes said at a December 2013 Columbia City Council meeting that the infrastructure couldn’t handle any more construction and that electric and sewer capacity was full, according to a story from the Columbia Tribune. All downtown buildings’ sewage flows into Flat Branch sewer system, which overflows during heavy rains.
According to Ordinance 62-14, the Opus project would add 11,552 gallons of waste to the sanitary system each day.
Then, a little over a year later, city council voted 4-3 to pass Ordinance 62-14 in a series of meetings that some citizens said were unlawful.
“They followed the letter of the law, but they didn’t follow the spirit of the law,” Cooper said. “It looked like (the meetings) were designed to minimize public input.”
In response, federal civil rights case Betty Wilson and Michael McMann vs City of Columbia and Mike Matthes was filed because of a violation of due process, Cooper said.
On March 12, 2014, city council held a special meeting for the introduction and first read of ordinances for three student housing development projects, including Opus.
At the regular city council meeting on March 17, the council received public comment on the projects for the first time. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, much of it was negative. Two days later, at a second special meeting, the council passed Ordinance 62-14 with a vote of 4-3.
The first meeting on March 12 lasted less than three minutes and violated Section 2-22 of the Columbia Code of Ordinances, according to the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Section 2-22 outlines the rules for holding special meetings in Columbia. They can only take place on the the first and third Monday evening of the month — March 12 was a Wednesday — or whenever the council deems necessary. Cooper said some citizens questioned whether the Opus development agreement was urgent enough to hold a special meeting.
Repeal 6214 thought the city’s meeting wasn’t accessible and violated Section 2-25 of the Code of Ordinances, Cooper said. Meetings must be held “at a time reasonably convenient to the public,” the ordinance reads. The Wednesday meeting was held at noon.
Cooper said Matthes didn’t follow the guidelines for notifying council members of a meeting as stated in Section 2-22. At the time, Section 2-22 stated that council members needed to be notified of a special meeting in person by a Columbia police officer. Matthes could not be reached for comment.
On July 21, 2014, the city voted to change the section’s language to allow the city manager to notify council members of a meeting by telephone or email. Those changes were made after the Opus development meetings in March.
Third Ward Councilman Karl Skala said he felt the council had adequate notice of the meetings even though police officers did not notify council members in person. He said Matthes emailed and telephoned members before the meetings.
City Counselor Nancy Thompson, who is one of the defendant’s attorney in the case, said in a voicemail Sept. 4 that city staff could not comment on “pending litigation.” The City Clerk could not be reached for comment.
In a reaction to what Cooper called “effectively illegal meetings,” Repeal 6214 began petitioning to repeal the ordinance. The group got the required number signatures and Ordinance 62-14 was repealed on June 16, 2014, according to an Aug. 27, 2014 Maneater article.
Before the petition was approved, the council introduced a new bill, Ordinance 130-14, on April 28 that was “the same in every material and enforceable respect” as Ordinance 62-14, according to the plaintiffs’ complaint.
The new ordinance was passed May 19 and prompted a second petition effort from citizens. The first time the petition was sent to the city, it was short on signatures. Repeal 6214 met the required number of signatures July 16 with 3,699 names on the petition, according to a timeline by the Columbia Missourian.
Although the petition was valid, Opus continued its project. District Flats, which is at the corner of Locust and Eighth streets, opened for students on Aug. 15 to move in as the semester began despite continued construction.
The developers got the go-ahead for District Flats because the ordinance was a development agreement, not a demolition or construction permits, Cooper said. Even though the ordinance, which would have give the city nearly $500,000 for approving the Opus project, failed, the developers could still apply for and receive demolition permits.
“The spirit of what we were trying to do was disregarded by the city, and (there was) every possible attempt to thwart our efforts to petition for redress of grievances,” Cooper said.
Jake Loft, senior and former candidate for First Ward City Council seat, is involved with Repeal 6214 as “an issue about law and the government.” He said he thinks a court appearance will help catch the city’s attention.
“It’s pretty easy to ignore a few voices on Facebook, but when a court rules down in favor of those few voices, the voices are a lot louder,” he said.
While running for office, Loft said he had to learn a lot about the Opus agreement. He said he thinks students aren’t invested in the issue because, for them, it’s a temporary problem.
“A lot of the time students can’t quite understand that even though they’re on campus, they’re in the middle of a city,” he said. “And they have to follow the rules of the city.”
Loft said he knows the infrastructure problem will take years to resolve, just as the disconnect between residents and local government will, but he thinks the case is “symbolic.”
Although only two names are on the case, the lawsuit against the city was filed on behalf of all affected citizens, Cooper said.
Both plaintiffs are long-time Columbia residents. Betty Wilson is an attorney at a downtown practice; she graduated from the MU School of Law in 1974. Michael McMann moved to Columbia in 1978 to attend MU.
Skala said he is surprised the disagreement resulted in a lawsuit. He said more open conversation between the disagreeing sides would have been more productive.
“Once you lawyer up on both sides, there is an inclination to extend these arguments, and I think it becomes less likely to solve these problems as you pour money into lawyers’ fees,” he said.
Repeal 6214 estimates the cost of their legal action to be around $10,000 and is focusing on raising money. They have to pay for court reporters, depositions and other mandatory court costs, according to the group’s page on GoFundMe, a crowdsourcing website.
As of Sept. 5, about a month after launching their fundraising page, the group had raised a total of $1,840 in donations from 40 individuals, according to the fundraising page. The group has held other fundraising events, including a Fourth of July carwash and that tomato sale.
Attorneys Jeremy Root, Josh Oxenhandler and Richard Reuben are representing the group pro-bono, meaning they will only receive payment if the plaintiffs win. Root was previously involved in the repeal effort as a citizen.
Cooper said the average donor is a long-time Columbia resident who is active in the city politically or culturally.
