City Council v. South Suburban Park
| Decision Date | 22 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05CA0292.,05CA0292. |
| Citation | 160 P.3d 376 |
| Parties | CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, Colorado; and City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. SOUTH SUBURBAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP, Malcolm M. Murray, Denver, Colorado; Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Andrew M. Low, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees.
Paul C. Rufien, P.C., Paul C. Rufien, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge WEBB.
In this statutory action for exclusion of property within a municipality from a special district, the trial court ordered the exclusion of the territory described in the petition upon certain conditions. Petitioners, the City Council of the City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado and the City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado (collectively, Cherry Hills), appeal the portion of the trial court's order that requires Cherry Hills to pay the special district fair market value (FMV) in the amount of $9,660,838. Respondents, South Suburban Park and Recreation District and the Board of Directors of the South Suburban Park and Recreation District (collectively, the District), cross-appeal on the basis that exclusion should not have been ordered because Cherry Hills would be unable to provide the services that had been provided by the District.
We conclude that the trial court misinterpreted the statute as requiring payment of FMV. Therefore, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, which rejects all other contentions of the parties.
An election was held that authorized Cherry Hills to seek exclusion under § 32-1-502, C.R.S.2006, of certain parks, improvements, and other property within its boundaries (facilities) from the District's ownership and oversight. Cherry Hills then petitioned the trial court for exclusion of the facilities. Both parties submitted statutorily required exclusion plans, which differed, and despite negotiation the parties could not agree. The trial court held a hearing on the opposing plans.
Cherry Hills' plan provided for its maintenance of the facilities and reimbursement to Cherry Hills residents for the differential cost of recreational programs previously available to them at resident rates through other facilities located elsewhere in the District. Nevertheless, the District asserted that Cherry Hills had failed to meet the condition for exclusion of agreeing "by resolution, to provide the service provided by the special district to the area described in the petition on and after the effective date of the exclusion order." Section 32-1-502(2)(a), C.R.S.2006.
The trial court ordered the facilities excluded from the District, subject, as relevant here, to Cherry Hills' maintenance and reimbursement obligations, as well as to Cherry Hills' paying the District $9,660,838. Based on conflicting evidence, the court determined this amount to be the FMV of the facilities. On appeal, the parties do not dispute the determination of FMV.
Section 32-1-502(2)(d), C.R.S.2006, provides:
If the municipality and the special district are unable to agree upon a single plan, the court shall review the plans of the municipality and the special district and direct each to carry out so much of their respective plans in which there is no disagreement and make such other provisions as the court finds fair and equitable, and shall make such allocation of facilities, impose such responsibilities for the discharge of indebtedness of the special district, and impose such other conditions and obligations on the special district and the municipality which the court finds necessary to permit the exclusion of territory from the special district and the transfer of facilities which are necessary to serve the territory excluded without impairing the quality of service nor imposing an additional burden or expense on the remaining territory of the special district. For the purpose of making such determination, the criteria set forth in this paragraph (d) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection shall be considered. The respective portions of the plans to be performed, the transfer of facilities, and the requirements for the discharge of indebtedness of the special district and other conditions and obligations imposed by the court shall be specifically set forth in the order excluding territory from the special district.
(Emphasis added.)
Section 32-1-502(b), C.R.S.2006, requires that the municipality provide "the services" provided by the special district.
Section 32-1-502(2)(c), C.R.S.2006, provides in relevant part:
The court's review of the provisions of the contract shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the amount of the special district's outstanding bonds, the discharge by the municipality or the territory excluded from the special district of that portion of the special district's indebtedness incurred to serve the territory proposed for exclusion, the fair market value and source of special district facilities located within the territory for exclusion, the facilities to be transferred which are necessary to serve the territory proposed for exclusion, the adequacy of the facilities retained by the special district to serve the remaining territory of the special district, the availability of the facilities transferred to the municipality for use, in whole or in part, in the remaining territory of the special district, the effect which the transfer of the facilities and assumption of indebtedness will have upon the service provided by the special district in territory which is not part of the exclusion, and the extent to which the exclusion reduces the services or facilities or increases the costs to users in the remaining territory of the special district.
(Emphasis added.)
Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Ryals v. St. Mary-Corwin Reg'l Med. Ctr., 10 P.3d 654 (Colo.2000).
Statutes should be interpreted to effect the General Assembly's intent, giving the words in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. Golden Animal Hosp. v. Horton, 897 P.2d 833, 836 (Colo.1995). A statute should be interpreted as a whole, giving effect to all its parts. Zab, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp., 136 P.3d 252, 255 (Colo.2006). Conflict between statutory provisions should be avoided. West v. Roberts, 143 P.3d 1037, 1044 (Colo.2006).
If the language of a statute "is clear and the intent of the General Assembly may be discerned with certainty, we need not resort to other rules of statutory interpretation." W. Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc., 134 P.3d 570, 573 (Colo.App.2006). But if the language is ambiguous, we look to "legislative history, prior law, the consequences of a given construction, and the goal of the statutory scheme to ascertain the correct meaning of a statute." Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Costilla County Conservancy Dist., 88 P.3d 1188, 1193 (Colo.2004) (quoting People v. Luther, 58 P.3d 1013, 1015 (Colo.2002)).
Courts also presume that the legislature intended a just and reasonable result. Section 2-4-201(1)(c), C.R.S.2006. Thus, courts will not interpret a statute in a manner that leads to an absurd or unreasonable result. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Roosa, 89 P.3d 524, 528 (Colo.App.2004).
Cherry Hills raises four contentions of error as to the FMV award. We agree with only one of Cherry Hills' contentions and on that basis conclude that remand is necessary. However, we address each contention in turn because of its potential effect on remand.
As a preliminary matter, the District asserts that at least two of these contentions were raised for the first time in the combined answer and reply brief. However, we do not read the opening brief so narrowly. In addition, we note that in its reply brief on cross-appeal, the District said that it "will negate City's [new] statutory interpretations on oral argument." And at oral argument, the District stated that further briefing would unnecessarily delay this appeal.
Cherry Hills first contends the trial court erred by considering the criteria in § 32-1-502(2)(b), (c), and (d) (statutory criteria)—which include FMV—in deciding whether the overall plan was "fair and equitable," without first finding that the exclusion would result in either an impairment of the quality of service or the imposition of an additional burden or expense on the District. We disagree.
Cherry Hills' contention focuses on the following language:
[The court shall] . . . make such other provisions as the court finds fair and equitable, and shall make such allocation of facilities, impose such responsibilities for the discharge of indebtedness of the special district, and impose such other conditions and obligations on the special district and the municipality which the court finds necessary to permit the exclusion of territory from the special district and the transfer of facilities which are necessary to serve the territory excluded without impairing the quality of service nor imposing an additional burden or expense on the remaining territory of the special district. For the purpose of making such determination, the criteria set forth in this paragraph (d) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection (2) shall be considered.
Section 32-1-502(2)(d) (emphasis added).
This language addresses the scenario in which—as occurred here—a municipality and a special district agree on some but not all terms of a plan for exclusion, leaving the court to establish "such other provisions," that is, additional terms binding on both parties. According to the plain language, those terms must be "fair and equitable."
Further, "such other provisions" may have to address (1) allocation of facilities, (2) discharge of district...
To continue reading
Request your trial