The city will defend the city attorney and real estate service manager.

The city of Colorado Springs will defend the city attorney and real estate services manager in a federal civil eminent domain case.

The City Council agreed informally on Monday to represent City Attorney Wynetta Massey and Real Estate Services Manager Darlene Kennedy in a pro se lawsuit Francisco Serna and Ajhalei Snoddy filed March 22. Serna and Snoddy, who previously owned the property at 3740 Colorado Ave., allege Colorado Springs did not comply with federal law and misrepresented funding sources for a regional revamp of West Colorado Avenue when the city acquired their property for the project through eminent domain in 2017.

The council agreed to represent Massey and Kennedy as required by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, according to a May 26 memo from the City Attorney’s Office and the Civil Action Investigation Committee to the City Council. Both women “were acting in the course and scope of their employment and not in a willful and wanton manner,” the memo states.

The city and El Paso County employee Dennis Barron, who identifies himself in court documents as a project manager for the Westside Avenue Action Plan project, are also named in the suit.

The city and the county declined to comment on the pending litigation Monday.

Among their allegations, Serna and Snoddy claim the city did not provide them “basic acquisition rights such as lawful appraisal” for its base offer for the property, that the city didn’t notify them of the June 13, 2017, City Council meeting during which the council authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire the property, and that the city asked for court orders that prevented the plaintiffs from submitting evidence at a valuation trial last month.

Serna and Snoddy claim in their suit since the West Colorado Avenue project received federal funds the city was required to comply, but did not, with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, including providing them a comparable dwelling.

“For many reasons, the city disputes plaintiffs’ claim to benefits under the (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act),” the memo states. Those reasons are not listed in the memo.

The suit claims Massey, as the city attorney, “was personally involved in the deprivation of (Serna and Snoddy’s) constitutional rights to due process and just compensation.” When Serna and Snoddy contacted Massey regarding federal funding in the project, the plaintiffs claim Massey “threat(ened) to inflict harm through legal fees if (they) pursued (their) federal rights in ‘ any forum, in any jurisdiction.’”

Serna and Snoddy reference an Oct. 25, 2021, email between Assistant City Attorney Anne Turner and Serna, included in court documents.

“The claim that the city failed to provide you with benefits under the (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act) to which you were entitled is frivolous,” Turner wrote. “Please be advised that if you persist in asserting such an argument in any forum, in any jurisdiction, the city may seek a judgement against you for its attorney fees and costs in having to defend against it.”

In that email, Turner said the court found Colorado Springs “had satisfied its burden to prove that the preconditions to filing the eminent domain action had been satisfied” during the immediate possession hearing on Oct. 20, 2017.

Turner also said “any purported failure of the city to provide relocation benefits” under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act “is not a basis for dismissal of the eminent domain action now, nor would it have been at the initiation of this case” because it is not an element that warrants dismissal of an eminent domain action.

Turner disputed in the email Serna’s claim, which he also made in the lawsuit, that he resided at the property before the city acquired it. Turner wrote in the email if Serna had been living at the property he wouldn’t have been eligible for benefits through the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act because the occupancy would have been “unlawful.”

The city notified Serna in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 the property was unlawful to occupy because it “did not meet minimum housing standards,” Turner wrote.

Serna and Snoddy claim in their suit the email response, which they attribute as Massey responding through Turner, was “callous.”

“Making threats and demanding an illegal donation through our consent to a ‘rule and order’ without disclosure paperwork of our right to a just compensation determination is callous disregard for our statutory and constitutional rights — rights to due process and just compensation,” the lawsuit states.

Serna and Snoddy allege Kennedy, as real estate services manager, did not disclose that federal funding was being used for the project.

They also claim Kennedy is responsible for the city’s failure to comply with its Procedure Manual for the Acquisition and Disposition of Real Property Interests at the June 13, 2017, City Council meeting by “having a non-qualifying project manager solicit use” of eminent domain powers; “misrepresenting” that Serna and Snoddy had received notice of that meeting; and “engaging in emails” with them that “misrepresented (their) rights to a federally compliant acquisition procedure.”

Serna and Snoddy further claim the city did not review the property appraisal it offered them, as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Acquisition Policies Act.

Among other claims, Serna and Snoddy allege court orders granted to the city during eminent domain proceedings, prohibiting them from referencing that federal law at a valuation hearing last month, violated their “due process rights and rights to just compensation.”

Serna and Snoddy seek an injunction from the court that would require the city to restart acquisition negotiations for their property pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Acquisition Policies Act; a declaration that the city’s manual for acquiring and selling property violated their rights to a review appraisal; and reimbursement for $25,125 in attorney’s fees.