Colorado Inv. Services, Inc. v. City of Westminster
| Decision Date | 06 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79CA0946,79CA0946 |
| Citation | 636 P.2d 1316 |
| Parties | COLORADO INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WESTMINSTER, a Home Rule City and Municipal Corporation of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Bradley, Campbell & Carney, Victor F. Boog, Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.
Stitt, Wittenbrink & Roan, P.C., James R. Stitt, Westminster, Law Office of Eric Damian Kelly, P.C., Eric Damian Kelly, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, Colorado Investment Services, Inc., appeals from a declaratory judgment determining that a contract between the City of Westminster and the plaintiff's predecessor in interest for water and sewer services is in full force and effect, but that the City may limit the number of water and sewer connections and the timing of such connections in accordance with its ability to serve its water customers. We affirm.
Plaintiff owns partially developed property outside the city limits of Westminster. In 1971, plaintiff's predecessor in interest and the City of Westminster had entered into a contract for the installation of water and sewer lines, for the allocation of the costs of such lines between the parties, and for the establishment of a rate structure for connection fees and service fees if and when services were provided under such agreement.
In 1977, in order to prevent a water shortage in Westminster, the City adopted a program for allocating available water and sewage treatment capacity. Under the system developed, the plaintiff received in new taps nine percent of its water taps in use. The plaintiff argues that under the contract it is entitled to receive all the taps it needs, whenever it needs them, to complete development of its property.
The contract with Colorado Investment Services does not mandate that the City provide a particular amount of water or sewer services for any particular number of dwelling units nor in any particular quantity or schedule. However, when the City entered into its contract with the plaintiff, the City had two existing contracts, one with the Town of Federal Heights and the other with Shaw Heights Water District, and the contract with Colorado Investment Services provides:
"In the event it shall become necessary to ration or otherwise curtail water service to the subject property or any other water customers of City, for any reason, said rationing or curtailment shall be applied to the subject property on the same terms and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkland v. St. Vrain Valley Sch. Dist. No. re-1J
...entity makes. See Keeling v. City of Grand Junction, 689 P.2d 679, 680 (Colo.Ct.App.1984); see also Colo. Inv. Servs., Inc. v. City of Westminster, 636 P.2d 1316, 1318 (Colo.Ct.App.1981). Anyone that contracts with a government entity is charged with constructively knowing those restriction......
-
Schulz v. City of Longmont, Colorado, 04-1418.
...makes. See Keeling v. City of Grand Junction, 689 P.2d 679, 680 (Colo.Ct.App.1984); see also Colo. Invs. Servs., Inc. v. City of Westminster, 636 P.2d 1316, 1318 (Colo.Ct.App. 1981). And anyone that contracts with a municipality is charged with constructive knowledge of those restrictions a......
-
Keelan v. Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
...Statutory law which pertains to the terms of a contract is considered part of that contract. See Colorado Investment Services, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 636 P.2d 1316 (Colo.App.1981) (law existing at time and place of making of contract with municipality is part of contract). Thus, § 31-......
-
City of North Charleston v. North Charleston Dist.
...Contracts, § 615 at 597 (3rd ed. 1961). This rule applies in the area of governmental contracts. See e.g. Colorado Investment Services v. City of Westminster, 636 P.2d 1316 (1981); and 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 29.118 at 539 (3d ed. A person who contracts with a municipality is ......