Steamboat Springs City Council members reached a consensus Tuesday on moving forward with a resolution stating their collective support for the Brown Ranch annexation agreement ahead of a voter referendum on the matter in March.

The referendum, scheduled for March 26, comes after a successful citizen petition was certified by the city in the wake of a council decision to annex 420 acres of land west of downtown Steamboat Springs.

The Brown Ranch land was purchased by the Yampa Valley Housing Authority on the wings of a $23 million anonymous donation, with a goal of constructing 2,264 affordable housing units on the property by 2042.

Steamboat voters approved a ballot measure in November to direct 75% of the city’s short-term rental tax revenue to the housing authority to fund the project. Should the referendum on the annexation fail in March, the outcome of the funding ballot measure would become moot.

City Attorney Dan Foote explained that while he is not aware of a council taking a position on a voter referendum in the past, the Fair Campaign Practices Act and the city’s election code allow for it.

While city expenditure of public funds in relation to elections is not allowed, Foote explained to council members that even though it involves paid staff’s efforts, “there is a narrow exception that permits the City Council to adopt and publish a resolution expressing a position on a ballot question.”

The council’s decision Tuesday night to move forward with a resolution in support of the annexation followed a discussion earlier this month where members seemed unsure of whether declaring a position on the matter would be needed.

“My question is really whether … are we relitigating whether or not we are agreeing to put this up for a vote?” council member Joella West said on Jan. 9.

Council member Bryan Swintek also questioned the impact of declaring a resolution, saying he was “very worried” about doing so.

“I am for Brown Ranch personally, but I think that this petition that has been signed has basically said the people feel like they are not being heard,” he said.

On Tuesday, Swintek and West said they felt differently.

“What changed my mind is more that I view this as us still backing up the (annexation) negotiations we had and showing confidence in them,” Swintek said.

“We still do want to hear what everyone is saying, we value the election, even if it does not go through, we then will go back to the drawing board and figure it out,” he added.

West said she supports the resolution because she believes the annexation agreement is a strong one.

“The point is, that whether you as a citizen want Brown Ranch to be annexed or don’t want it to be annexed, I stand behind the agreement that we negotiated,” West said.

“For anybody who is for Brown Ranch, in general, for anybody who is sitting on the fence about Brown Ranch, this is a really solid agreement — we can make this project happen,” she added. “The fences are up within it to prevent unintended disasters, and I support that.”

Steve Muntean, along with Swintek and Amy Dickson, is one of three newly elected council members, all of whom ran their campaigns with statements of support for the Brown Ranch project.

“For three new members of council, we weren’t involved in this decision-making process — I don’t want to speak for the others — but I know that I ran on a campaign that supported a financially sound Brown Ranch annexation plan,” he said.

“The one side of me said it is setting the precedent in a sense of we haven’t done it before, but the other side of me, I support it, so I don’t have a problem at all in making that resolution,” he added.

“Ditto,” Dickson said. “I support the annexation, and I think it’s important for us to come out and say that we, as a council, support it.”

Council member Michael Buccino kicked off Tuesday’s discussion on the resolution by saying he had given the matter “a lot of deliberation,” and he thinks City Council’s “vote for the annexation speaks loud and clear.”

But after the council’s roughly 10-minute discussion Tuesday, he had changed his mind.

“Let’s do it,” he said before the members agreed on moving forward with the resolution. “I was trying to be neutral, but I totally agree with what you all said.”

Yampa Valley Housing Authority Executive Director Jason Peasley said he had no comment on the resolution.

“We are kind of in a unique position that I as a paid member for the government can’t be out advocating for a vote on a project, or any referendum item for that matter, even though it is our project,” he said.

“If people want to get into conversations about, should I vote this way or that way, I can’t really engage, so I would just say there is a campaign on either side — feel free to talk to them,” he added.

House Our Community, which was active in advocating for the November ballot question concerning the city’s short-term rental tax revenue, is the group supporting the annexation of Brown Ranch.

The Citizens for a Better Plan, which operates the Facebook page titled “Vote No on Brown Ranch,” is the group formed to advocate against the annexation of Brown Ranch.