Gronberg v. Teton County Housing Authority
2011 WY 13
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Appellants allege TCHA violated the Public Meetings Act, misused SPET funds, and incurred improper debt; district court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment for TCHA.
- TCHA purchased the Mantey property with a $2 million loan, planning to use SPET proceeds; board later ratified the purchase after learning the initial executive-session vote was improper.
- SPET ballot authorized funds to acquire properties to be utilized for affordable housing; question whether land banking/purchases not directly used in housing fit the ballot scope.
- March 1, 2007 purchase vote occurred in an executive session; September 20, 2007 and November 15, 2007 public ratifications followed the error.
- District court held certain claims (12(b)(6) and summary judgment) in favor of Appellees; Supreme Court reviews de novo for summary judgment and dismissals.
- Court ultimately affirms public-meetings rulings, reverses on some 12(b)(6) dismissals and remands for factual resolution on SPET land-banking/investment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a public agency ratify a void meeting decision? | Gronberg: ratification cannot cure void action. | Gronberg: ratification possible via new public reconsideration. | Yes; ratification/cure permitted by new open reconsideration. |
| Is a transcript/record of the March 1, 2007 executive session discoverable or moot after ratification? | Appellants seek the executive session record for factual issues remaining. | Record may be confidential and moot on ratification, subject to order. | Not moot for related factual issues; district court to consider in camera disclosure under statute. |
| Can TCHA pursue a land-banking real estate investment program under SPET? | SPET proceeds must be used for specific purposes authorized by voters; land banking may exceed ballot. | CTA actions fall within SPET purposes as affordable-housing-related investments. | Remand to resolve whether Mantey serves direct or indirect affordable-housing use; factual dispute remains. |
| Are SPET-funded investments limited by statutory and ballot language (15-10-103(viii), 15-10-108)? | Investments outside direct housing use exceed statutory scope. | Investments meet statutory authority for housing projects. | Reversal on dismissal; statutory interpretation needed to resolve whether land banking complies. |
| Does Article 16 debt limit apply to TCHA borrowing for land banking? | Debt limits apply to county; TCHA debt is masqueraded as county debt. | Housing-project debt is not a general county debt; debt limits do not apply. | Constitutional debt limits do not apply to housing-project debt; district court's dismissal affirmed on constitutional grounds, albeit for the wrong reason. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers v. University of Alaska, 677 P.2d 886 (Alaska 1984) (open decision-making; remedying void actions through public process)
- Neese v. Paris Special School District, 813 S.W.2d 432 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990) (ratification may occur via new, substantial reconsideration in compliance with the act)
- Banner v. City of Laramie, 289 P.2d 922 (Wyo.1955) (special-debt mechanisms not bound by general constitutional debt limits)
- Qwest Corp. v. PSC of Wyoming, 161 P.3d 495 (Wy. 2007) (specific statutes control; specific statutory granting hat over general grants)
- Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Building Code Board of Appeals of the City of Cheyenne, 222 P.3d 158 (Wyo.2010) (open meetings; public proceedings and notice requirements)
- Cantrell v. Sweetwater County School District No. 2, 133 P.3d 983 (Wyo.2006) (12(b)(6) dismissal standards and liberal construction of allegations)