The Colorado Springs bond deal lawsuit, filed in July 2025 by the neighborhood group Preserve Pine Creek Village against the City of Colorado Springs and Mayor Yemi Mobolade, was dismissed on standing grounds by El Paso County District Court Judge William Bain, who found the group had not shown any member would be directly harmed by the $60 million bond issued to finance the Royal Pine Apartments project. The developer then countersued the neighbors, and parts of that case are still active.
What the Bond Financed
The disputed financing supported Royal Pine Apartments, a 232-unit affordable housing complex planned for 4150 Royal Pine Drive in the Briargate area of north Colorado Springs.1Colorado Springs City Council. Royal Pine Apartments Ordinance No. 25-56 The developer, DBG Properties, reserved units for residents earning between less than 30% and up to 70% of area median income.2The Gazette. Two Affordable Housing Projects in Colorado Springs on Different Paths
The city financed the deal through Private Activity Bonds, a tool that lets municipalities issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of private developers for public-purpose projects. The city acts as a conduit issuer; the developer, not the city, is responsible for repayment.3City of Colorado Springs. Private Activity Bonds FAQ The total authorization was $60 million: up to $40 million in tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds and a $20 million taxable portion.4The Gazette. Briargate Neighbors File Lawsuit to Block Colorado Springs Bond for Affordable Housing The City Council passed the final bond ordinance on May 27, 2025, in an 8-1 vote.5Yahoo News. City of Colorado Springs Faces Lawsuit Over Bond Deal
The TABOR Claim
Preserve Pine Creek Village, LLC filed its complaint in El Paso County District Court on July 3, 2025, naming the City of Colorado Springs and Mayor Mobolade as defendants and asking a judge to block the bond from closing.6KKTV. $40 Million Deal Sparks Lawsuit Against Colorado Springs Mayor The group had expected the city to finalize the bond in mid-July.
The complaint relied on Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the 1992 constitutional amendment that generally requires voter approval before a government takes on “multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect district debt or other financial obligation.” Preserve Pine Creek argued that the $60 million bond was exactly that kind of multi-year obligation and that the city had no authority to issue it without a vote.5Yahoo News. City of Colorado Springs Faces Lawsuit Over Bond Deal The complaint also alleged violations of Article XI of the Colorado Constitution and due process requirements, and claimed the ordinance benefited a private developer rather than a public need.
The city’s position tracked the standard understanding of conduit-issued bonds. Because the city bears no repayment obligation, it argued, the bonds do not create the kind of multi-year government debt TABOR restricts. The city’s own FAQ describes the developer as “solely liable for the loan.”7KOAA. Next Step for Affordable Apartments in Briargate Area of Colorado Springs
Why the Case Was Dismissed
Fourth Judicial District Court Judge William Bain dismissed the lawsuit in the summer of 2025 on standing, not on the merits of the TABOR argument. He found that Preserve Pine Creek Village had failed to identify any member who would be directly affected by the bond or to prove taxpayer harm. The group’s assertion that the city might ultimately be liable for bond payments was, in his words, “conclusory” and lacked factual or legal support.8Colorado Politics. Judge Dismisses Pine Creek TABOR Lawsuit
Because the ruling turned on standing, the court never addressed whether Private Activity Bonds qualify as “debt” under TABOR. That underlying constitutional question remains open and could resurface in future challenges to bond-financed housing projects in Colorado.
City spokesman Max D’Onofrio said the city would wait seven weeks from the ruling date before closing on the bond, allowing the full appeal period to lapse.8Colorado Politics. Judge Dismisses Pine Creek TABOR Lawsuit
The Developer’s Countersuit
While the TABOR challenge was still pending, DBG Properties sued Preserve Pine Creek Village and five individual residents, including Pine Creek Village Association Board President Steve Parrish.9The Gazette. Pine Creek Neighbors Sued by Developer for Malicious Lawsuits Against Affordable Apartments DBG alleged malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and tortious interference, claiming the residents had engaged in a two-year pattern of baseless litigation designed to delay the project and undermine its financing.
The residents’ attorney, Joseph O’Keefe, moved to dismiss the countersuit under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects people from lawsuits targeting their right to petition the government or use the courts.8Colorado Politics. Judge Dismisses Pine Creek TABOR Lawsuit The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The malicious prosecution claim was dismissed, but the judge found DBG “reasonably likely to prevail” on its abuse of process and tortious interference claims and allowed those to move forward. The court concluded DBG had presented sufficient evidence that the residents’ legal actions were intended to delay the project and cause financial harm rather than pursue legitimate claims.10Midpage. DBG Properties LLC v. Preserve Pine Creek Village
Where Things Stand
As of late 2025, Royal Pine Apartments was officially under construction after approvals from the City Council, City Planning and Zoning, and Colorado Springs Utilities.11KKTV. New Apartment Complex Under Construction in North Colorado Springs The El Paso County Housing Authority’s financial closing had been anticipated for July 2025 but remained contingent on the pending litigation.12El Paso County Housing Authority. EPCHA Meeting Minutes June 2025 DBG has proposed a July 2027 completion date for the 232-unit complex.13The Gazette. Bonds for Two Colorado Springs Affordable Housing Projects Moved Ahead
DBG’s countersuit against the neighborhood group and the five individual residents remains active on the abuse of process and tortious interference claims. The TABOR question that drove the original lawsuit, whether a conduit-issued Private Activity Bond is “debt” the voters must approve, was never answered.