Colorado Supreme Court ruling sparks debate over implications for Cascadia project in Northern Colorado

A Colorado Supreme Court ruling involving a planned unit development in Telluride is fueling debate over whether a similar voter-approved referendum targeting the proposed Cascadia development in Greeley can stand.

The state's highest court ruled unanimously that voters in Telluride illegally held a special election that would have blocked the town's proposal to rezone a planned unit development, or PUD, a type of mixed-use zoning that can include businesses and housing.

Supporters of the proposed Cascadia entertainment and housing district in Northern Colorado said the ruling directly undermined the special election held in Greeley to block the project's PUD. Opponents to the development argued that the circumstances are different and that the court's decision does not apply to the Greeley case.

"The Colorado Supreme Court just issued a muscular ruling in support of local decision making," said Bill Rigler, spokesperson for the Cascadia project. 

Rigler said the court's ruling makes clear that developments like Cascadia cannot be subjected to a special election after a city or town council votes to approve it. He argued the voters did have a say in such decision making by voting for their preferred candidates, who then go on to make those types of decisions on their behalf. 

"Today [the Colorado Supreme Court] ruled unanimously that projects like Cascadia in Greeley cannot be subject to a special election on the basis that it's an administrative decision and not a legislative action," Rigler said.

However, Suzanne Taheri, an attorney representing Greeley Demands Better, said the Telluride case differs from the circumstances surrounding Cascadia.

"We don't believe it's apples to apples," Taheri said.

Taheri pointed to language in the court's ruling that she believes limits its application.

The line in the "Application" portion of the ruling she sourced said, "We conclude that an amendment to a PUD agreement is not legislative in character and thus is not a proper subject of the initiative process."

"This is not an amendment to a PUD agreement," Taheri said.

Taheri argued the referendum in Greeley was held before the rezoning went into effect, while the Telluride case involved amendments to a rezoning decision that had already been finalized. She said the court ruled that making an amendment to an already finalized PUD was what made it unconstitutional, not having a special election to stop such a PUD from taking effect initially. 

"So we think it's pretty solidly conclusive that they have no case in court," Taheri said.

Despite the disagreement, Rigler said the ruling gives Cascadia supporters renewed confidence as legal challenges continue.

"[The City of] Greeley has wanted this. It's facing a massive budget deficit. Weld County needs it. They want the jobs and the tax revenue, and we're ready to go," Rigler said. "We're very excited about this ruling, and we know that we've got a few more hurdles that we have to jump over still. But, we're ready to go."

CBS News Colorado reached out to a spokesperson for the City of Greeley to ask them what this may mean for next steps. A spokesperson said it is too early to tell, as they were just receiving the information from the ruling as well. They wrote, in a statement, saying the following:

"We have just become aware of the ruling and are reviewing the decision and its implications. Because the ruling was just issued, we are not in a position to comment on the effect, if any, on the February 24 election or on Council's recent decision to pause while a new financial partner is identified. 

We'll evaluate all information and possible paths forward in the coming days once we have an opportunity to fully evaluate the ruling."