Last week, the Steamboat Springs City Clerk released an initial decision regarding a pair of election complaints filed against the Yampa Valley Housing Authority, dismissing the first and requesting additional information for the second.

Filed on Feb. 5 by Steamboat resident Ken Mauldin Jr., the complaints allege the housing authority violated sections of the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act (included in the city’s election code) by spending public funds to urge votes in favor of the annexation of Brown Ranch ahead of a March 26 referendum on the matter.

The 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 annex 420 acres of land known as Brown Ranch west of downtown Steamboat Springs.

The housing authority purchased the land with a $23 million anonymous donation. 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 first complaint relates to the housing authority’s Jan. 28 social media advertisement for a public meeting at Colorado Mountain College “to discuss how YVHA and Brown Ranch are helping solve our affordable housing crisis.”

City Clerk Julie Franklin’s initial decision dismissed the complaint, noting it is “brief and stated in broad and general terms.”

“Although it assumes that Brown Ranch will solve the city’s affordable housing crisis, it does so in reference to a discussion, suggesting that there may be different points of view,” Franklin wrote.

“Finally, the Jan. 28 ad does not refer in any way to annexation or the upcoming March 26 election. Accordingly, it does not constitute an expenditure ‘to urge electors to vote in favor or against’ the Brown Ranch annexation ballot issue,” she added.

The second complaint concerns two documents, a “Brown Ranch Fact Sheet” and a document titled “Top Ten Facts about Brown Ranch,” made available on the housing authority’s website.

Mauldin alleged the publication of the documents constituted a violation of the state and city election codes because “it includes only positive attributes of the proposed annexation argument.”

According to the city’s election code, which incorporates elements of the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, public funds may be spent “to dispense a factual summary” on a particular issue if the summary “includes arguments both for and against the proposal.”

According to the clerk’s office, Mauldin submitted an email Feb. 12, “further alleging the continued hosting of these documents on the YVHA website constitutes an ongoing expenditure of public funds,” but the housing authority has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the email.

The housing authority did respond to the complaints in a letter sent to the clerk’s office in the days after Mauldin submitted his allegations.

In that response, the clerk noted the housing authority asserted the “fact sheets were produced and published prior to Nov. 27,” when the citizens’ petition calling for the referendum on the Brown Ranch annexation was certified.

As such, the housing authority argued in the response, the expenditures related to the documents are not subject to the election codes’ provisions, according to the clerk.

Respondents assert, in the alternative, that the Fact Sheets do not “urge voters to vote in favor or against the referendum.”

“Respondents instead characterize the Fact Sheets as focusing on ongoing project planning,” the clerk’s initial decision added.

Ultimately, the clerk found that the second complaint “states a factual and legal basis for further investigation under the city’s election code,” but noted that Mauldin “has provided no evidence in support of the conclusory allegations regarding the expenditure of public funds.”

Given the lack of evidence and because the housing authority disputes the allegations regarding the expenditure of public funds, the clerk ultimately found the resolution of Mauldin’s second complaint requires additional review.

In making the decision, Franklin requested the housing authority produce additional documents to include website logs, emails and other internal and external communications to support the assertion that the fact sheets were prepared and published prior to the citizens’ petition certification.

The clerk further requested documentation to show that hosting the fact sheets on the housing authority website results in ongoing or additional costs to the public entity, and asked for documents that would reflect whether any public funds, staff time or other public resources were used in their production or dissemination.

Finally, Franklin noted in her decision a citizen inquiry her office received “expressing concerns” over a presentation delivered by YVHA Executive Director Jason Peasley on Feb. 5 to the Steamboat Springs School District Board in the context of the presentation potentially violating restrictions on the use of public funds.

The clerk requested the housing authority provide documentation as to who produced the presentation, along with information to reflect whether any public funds, staff time or other public resources were used in its production and dissemination.

“These documents are material and relevant to a determination as to whether the production and/or dissemination of the presentations complies with the Election Code,” Franklin noted of the school district presentation materials.

Peasley said last week the housing authority “takes very seriously our mandate to provide affordable and attainable housing, as well as to educate the public on what we do and how we do it since our housing developments are so different from market-rate housing.”

“Our community presentations focus on where we are planning housing developments, what they will look like, and how we leverage community funds, public and private grants, and tax credits along with private capital to deliver housing for our local workforce,” he added.

City Attorney Dan Foote said the housing authority has until Feb. 29 to return the documentation. The clerk will then decide on how to move forward with the investigation, if at all.