Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the City of Florence did not violate the Kentucky Open Meetings Act by privately discussing and agreeing to settle pending zoning litigation. The litigation exception permitted private settlement discussions because the City conducted the binding vote on the settlement and the zoning ordinance at public meetings. The court affirmed summary judgment for the City and declined to address the intervention issue.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the City's private discussions and preliminary commitment concerning settlement of pending zoning litigation violated the Kentucky Open Meetings Act when the settlement was approved by municipal order at a public meeting.
- Whether the City's approval of the settlement and zoning change violated the Residents' due-process rights.
- Whether the Residents' claims should have been dismissed because they failed to intervene in the Property Owners' earlier circuit-court appeal.
Holdings
- The City did not violate the Open Meetings Act by privately discussing and negotiating settlement of pending zoning litigation because KRS 61.810(1)(c) exempts discussions of proposed or pending litigation from the public-meeting requirement, and the City's binding vote accepting the settlement occurred at a public meeting.
- The Residents' due-process argument was without merit because it depended on a violation of the Open Meetings Act, and the Court determined that no such violation occurred.
- The Court did not reach the intervention issue because summary judgment for the appellees was properly affirmed on the Open Meetings Act and related claims.
Key quotations
“Settlement conferences in litigation are just that — discussions and proposed agreements.” (441)
“As long as the vote on the municipal order accepting the agreement is made at a public meeting, and the necessary ordinance changing the zone is made at public meetings, the Open Meetings Act has been complied with.” (441)
Factual background
Property Owners sought to rezone three residential lots in Florence, Kentucky, for construction of two office buildings. After the City denied the zone change because of traffic concerns, the Property Owners appealed and negotiated privately with the City while the litigation was pending. The parties agreed that the Property Owners would make specified traffic-pattern changes and that the City would approve the zone change. A quorum of the city council participated in private settlement discussions, but the City approved the settlement by municipal order at a public meeting and subsequently adopted the zoning ordinance through public meetings.
Procedural history
The Property Owners appealed the City's initial denial of a zone change to Boone Circuit Court. While that appeal was pending, the parties privately negotiated a settlement, which the City approved by municipal order at a public meeting and implemented through an ordinance adopted at public meetings. Residents then sued the City and others, but the circuit court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review.