For the second time in less than a month, an election complaint filed with the Steamboat Springs clerk’s office has accused the Yampa Valley Housing Authority of violating the city’s election rules regulating how government entities may spend public funds to influence voters.

Submitted this week by Steamboat residents Dave Barnes and Kelly Phillips, the latest complaint alleges misuse of public funds by the housing authority in the lead-up to the 2023 general election, according to a redacted copy of the complaint provided by City Attorney Dan Foote.

The November election included a ballot measure in Steamboat known as 2i, which proposed dedicating 75% of the city’s short-term rental funding to the Brown Ranch affordable housing project.

The project aims to construct 2,264 affordable and attainable housing units on 420 acres of the Brown Ranch property, which is west of the city and was purchased with a $24 million anonymous donation given to the housing authority in 2021.

The complaint from Barnes and Phillips further alleges the housing authority has misused funds in the lead-up to a March 26 referendum asking voters to decide if the city should annex the Brown Ranch property — a step needed to see the affordable housing project proceed.

The annexation agreement with the city would allow development to proceed with a phased goal to construct 2,264 affordable and attainable housing units on the property by 2042.

The March referendum is being held after a successful citizens’ petition was certified by the city in the wake of a City Council decision last October to move forward with the annexation without voter input.

Reached for comment Thursday, YVHA Director Jason Peasley said the housing authority believes it has not violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act.

“We never ask anyone to vote yes or no on annexation, and at all of our community presentations, we acknowledge that we are government employees and cannot take a position on the vote,” Peasley said. “Our role is to educate people on what we do.”

The city’s election code, which incorporates the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, prohibits “any political subdivision of the state” from spending public funds “to urge electors to vote in favor or against” any local ballot issue.

The code does permit the expenditure of public funds in limited instances, including allowing elected bodies to adopt a public a resolution expressing a position on a ballot question, an exercise that would entail some level of participation from staff.

Public funds may also be spent “to dispense a factual summary” on a particular issue, but only if the summary “includes arguments both for and against the proposal,” according to the election rules.

At the end of January, another Steamboat resident, Ken Mauldin Jr., submitted a pair of election complaints against the housing authority. One, which the city clerk later dismissed, claimed the housing authority “engaged in paid advertising to advocate in support of a position on a ballot question related to the proposed Brown Ranch.”

The second of Mauldin’s complaints, which prompted the clerk to request further information from the housing authority before deciding whether to investigate further, alleged a violation over a housing authority fact sheet titled “Brown Ranch Top 10 Facts” — because it “includes only positive attributes of the proposed argument.”

The clerk set a Feb. 29 deadline for the housing authority to provide additional information over Mauldin’s allegations.

In their complaint, Barnes and Phillips focused on materials and fact sheets disseminated by the housing authority with respect to their alleged failure to include “arguments both for and against” the Brown Ranch ballot measures.

“The YVHA materials do not even acknowledge that there may be arguments against annexation of Brown Ranch or the use of short-term rental tax funds to support its development,” the complaint states.

“Moreover, the YVHA materials include ‘a conclusion or opinion’ on the subject ballot measures, namely that YVHA’s position is in the community’s best interest,” it adds.

The complaint goes on to cite newsletters and media clippings, including editorials, posted to the housing authority’s website that they say “encouraged voters to support the YVHA’s preferred position on the subject ballot measures” and argues recent housing authority community presentations constituted the public expenditure of funds lobbying voters to favor Brown Ranch.

Finally, the complaint includes copies of text messages and emails, obtained through a public records request, that were sent between housing authority staff and board members and representatives of the developer, The Michaels Organization, ahead of the November election.

Last summer, the housing authority tapped the organization, the nation’s largest privately held owner of affordable housing, to become its development partner for the Brown Ranch project, dependent on the annexation agreement being approved.

The communications appear to show messages sent Sept. 15 by a Michaels Organization executive to YVHA Board Director Leah Wood, with housing authority staff copied, in which he states the need for an effort “to get in front of the narrative” ahead of the short-term rental ballot question and, at the time, pending annexation referendum.

The executive, Bruce Morgan, notes that YVHA Executive Director Jason Peasley had stated he and his staff were prohibited from engaging directly in any messaging effort to include hiring a professional public relations firm to assist.

Two days earlier, in a text message exchange between Morgan and Peasley, the housing authority director states “the PR move is awesome” and offered to connect Morgan with Wood, and a committee formed to support the public votes directly, according to the documents included in the complaint.

Campaign finance documents filed with the city show The Michaels Organization contributed $10,000 to the House Our Community committee before the November vote and another $10,000 to the group on Dec. 15.

On Thursday, Peasley pushed back against accusations that the housing authority has violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act.

“We never ask anyone to vote yes or no on annexation and, at all of our community presentations, we acknowledge that we are government employees and cannot take a position on the vote,” he said. “Our role is to educate people on what we do.”

Peasley also said the complaints would have “no impact on our duty to the community to provide information about how we design and develop housing units for the community.”

“We will continue to be open and transparent to the community about the ongoing planning and development of Mid Valley and Brown Ranch by following through on our planned presentations and town hall events,” he added.

According to Foote, the clerk’s office will make an initial decision over the latest complaint, which is 213 pages, within 10 business days of its receipt and may take up to 30 additional days to decide if further investigation is needed — or whether independent mediation is warranted.

If upheld, the election complaints could result in fines being levied against a respondent, or the city could decide to give a party found to have broken the election rules the opportunity to remedy its error, according to Foote.