A public hearing Thursday at Louisville City Hall drew sharp debate over two proposed initiatives dealing with affordable housing, zoning and the fees property developers pay to the city.

Petitions were originally filed July 2 with hopes of putting the two questions on the November ballot. But those chances were quashed after three residents filed protests claiming the measures violate the Colorado Constitution.

Hearing officer Karen Goldman presided over arguments at Louisville City Hall. If she rules the proposed measures sufficient, they would advance to City Council, which could either adopt them directly or call a special election, since it is too late for the potential measures to go to voters in November.

What’s in the initiatives?

The first initiative would bar the city from rezoning land in Centennial Valley, Redtail Ridge and the Avista Adventist Hospital area for residential use — unless developers commit 30% of new housing to be considered affordable. “Zoning” is a local government’s rules for what can be built in different parts of town.

The second initiative would expand the impact fees developers must pay on new projects and establish a resident committee to guide a new fee study.

The protesters’ case

Attorney Michael Shea, representing protesters Don Brown, Karen Brown and former Ward 1 councilmember Tim Bierman, argued both measures violate the state’s “single-subject rule,” which prevents ballot measures from combining unrelated issues.

He argued the zoning restrictions and affordable housing provisions in the first initiative “flatly contradict each other,” while the second improperly pairs fee increases with the creation of a new resident committee.

Shea also contended the second initiative goes beyond voter authority, which state law says is legislative by nature and cannot infringe on the administrative functions, he said.

The impact fees initiative imposes “a detailed administrative requirement governing how fees are calculated and updated,” Shea said. “It micromanages how that has to be done … And that’s not a suitable topic for ordinance.”

The petitioners’ response

Organizer Janette Kotichas, who headed the initiatives’ signature gathering effort, represented herself at the hearing. She said the zoning initiative is “straightforward” and complies with the single-subject law.

“We’re talking about rezoning. It’s really that simple,” Kotichas said.

She called former state legislator Matt Jones to testify, who said the measures “easily” meet the single-subject requirement and compared them to typical legislative bills.

Janette Kotichas listens to the protesters’ argument during the hearing at Louisville City Hall on Thursday. (Cliff Grassmick/Staff Photographer)

“If you applied the narrow standards brought by the people not wanting this petition, many bills in the legislature would not be allowed,” Jones said.

Jones also challenged the protest’s claim that the impact fee measure would unlawfully put administrative powers in the hands of voters.

“You’re amending a current law. That’s what legislation does all the time. That’s a normal thing,” he said. “It’s directing the redeployment of resources, which is the legislative function.”

What’s next?

After the hearing, Kotichas told Colorado Hometown Weekly she remains hopeful that voters will have their say about the initiatives.

“I really trust that (Goldman is) going to do the right thing,” she said. “She has all the information to make a righteous decision.”

Don Brown, a former Louisville mayoral candidate, said he still believes the initiatives are less about affordable housing and more about restricting growth.

“The petitioners’ attempt is one of a number of efforts over a long series of years to limit development in the city,” Brown told Colorado Hometown Weekly. “While it’s being sold as an affordable housing measure, I think it goes well beyond that and really locks future citizens and councils from being able to make reasonable decisions.”

Brown added that Louisville needs more housing diversity, from patio homes for older residents to options that allow younger people to stay in town.

“It seems silly to me that we would build a … hospital and not provide an opportunity for those individuals working there — protecting our community — to live in our community,” he said.

Goldman has until Tuesday to issue a written decision on whether the initiatives should move forward. Any of the involved parties will be able to ask a district court to review the finding, according to the City Clerk’s Office.