Depart. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs

• Citation: 192 P.3d 490
• Decision Date: 01 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. 07CA0274.,07CA0274.
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Colorado

192 P.3d 490

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF IDAHO SPRINGS, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07CA0274.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

May 1, 2008.

Certiorari Denied September 22, 2008.

John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Daniel D. Domenico, Solicitor General, Harry S. Morrow, First Assistant Attorney General, Megan Paris Rundlet, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud, LLP, Malcolm M. Murray, Debra S. Kalish, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.

Opinion by Judge RUSSEL.

Plaintiff, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), appeals from an order denying its request for declaratory judgment against defendant, the City of Idaho Springs. We affirm.

I. Background

The city has adopted regulations under the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act (AASIA), sections 24-65.1-101 to -502, C.R.S.2007. It asserts that CDOT must comply with these regulations. CDOT disagrees.

To settle the question, CDOT filed an action in the district court seeking declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57. In support of its request, CDOT argued that it was exempt from the city's regulatory scheme for three reasons:

1. CDOT is not subject to regulations promulgated under the AASIA because it is not a "person" within the meaning of that law.

2. Alternatively, the AASIA conflicts with, and implicitly has been repealed by, provisions in Title 43 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.

3. Insofar as they may apply to CDOT's core functions, the city's regulations are preempted by Title 43.

The district court denied CDOT's motion for declaratory relief and certified its order as a final judgment under C.R.C.P. 54(b).

II. Statutory Schemes

CDOT's arguments center on the relationship between the AASIA and Title 43. We briefly introduce these statutory schemes.

A. AASIA

The AASIA is a land use act. It allows local governments to designate certain areas of land and physical activities as "matters of state interest." §§ 24-65.1-201, -203, C.R.S. 2007. Once a local government has designated an area or activity as a matter of state interest, it must develop regulations (consistent with statutory criteria) to protect the utility, value, and future of the land. See §§ 24-65.1-101(1)(a), -402, C.R.S.2007.

Any person who would develop land in a designated area or conduct a designated activity must obtain a permit from the local government. § 24-65.1-501(1)(a), C.R.S.2007. If the proposed development or activity does not comply with the applicable regulations, the permit application must be denied. § 24-65.1-501(3)-(4), C.R.S.2007. Any person who does not obtain a permit may be enjoined from conducting the development or activity. § 24-65.1-501(6), C.R.S.2007.

B. Title 43

Title 43 governs part of the state's transportation system. Among other things, it places CDOT in charge of developing the state transportation plan. See § 43-1-1101, C.R.S.2007. It also requires CDOT to "construct and maintain all roads comprising the state highway system." § 43-2-102, C.R.S. 2007.

Title 43 ensures that the state's transportation planning process complies with 23 U.S.C. §§ 134-135 and 23 C.F.R. pt. 450 so that Colorado may be eligible for federal funding. See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. § 134(k)(5) (federal funds may be withheld for failure to certify compliance with federal law). It divides the state into transportation planning regions and allows each regional commission to prepare a regional transportation plan. § 43-1-1103, C.R.S.2007. CDOT then integrates the regional plans into a statewide plan. See §§ 43-1-1101, -1102(7), -1103(5), C.R.S.2007; see also 23 U.S.C. § 135(g).

III. Discussion

CDOT contends that the district court erroneously rejected its arguments in denying declaratory relief. Because these arguments present issues of statutory interpretation, we review de novo. Bostelman v. People, 162 P.3d 686, 689 (Colo.2007).

For the following reasons, we conclude that the district court properly rejected CDOT's arguments.

A. CDOT Is a Person

As noted, the AASIA requires any "person" to obtain a permit before developing land in an area of state interest or conducting an activity of state interest. § 24-65.1-501(1)(a). We conclude that CDOT is a "person" under the act.

The AASIA defines "person" as follows: "As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires ... `Person' means any individual, limited liability company, partnership, corporation, association, company, or other public or corporate body, including the federal government, and includes any political subdivision, agency, instrumentality, or corporation of the state." § 24-65.1-102(6), C.R.S.2007.

CDOT recognizes that it qualifies as a "person" under this statutory definition. But it contends that this definition does not control. Relying on the introductory clause of section 24-65.1-102, C.R.S.2007, CDOT argues that the definition is inapplicable because "the context otherwise requires."

We reject this argument.

1. Meaning of "Context"

We begin by considering this question: What did the legislature mean when it said, "unless the context otherwise requires"? What information constitutes "the context"?

As with all statutory terms, we construe "context" according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo.2004). And we conclude, contrary to CDOT's view, that "context" does not refer to circumstances that could arise if CDOT were required to obtain permits from local governments. Instead, context refers only to pertinent statutory language—the text of the AASIA and related statutes. See Pima Fin. Serv. Corp. v. Selby, 820 P.2d 1124, 1128 (Colo.App.1991) (the phrase, "unless the context otherwise requires," refers not to the factual context of a particular transaction but to the language of the statute); see also Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 199-200, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) ("`Context' here means the text of the Act of Congress surrounding the word at issue, or the texts of other related congressional Acts, and this is simply an instance of the word's ordinary meaning.").

We therefore focus on statutory text in determining whether to disregard the definition of "person" set forth in section 24-65.1-102(6).

2. Application

Contrary to CDOT's view, the relevant statutory language indicates that CDOT is a person under the AASIA.

As noted, the AASIA allows local governments to regulate various activities of state interest. § 24-65.1-402(1), C.R.S.2007. One of these activities is the "[s]ite selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways." § 24-65.1-203(1)(e), C.R.S. 2007.

Because the site selection of arterial highways is an activity often conducted by CDOT (under the provisions of Title 43), the context suggests that the legislature intended to subject CDOT to some degree of local regulatory control under the AASIA. See also § 24-65.1-104(3), C.R.S.2007 (for purposes of the AASIA, an arterial highway is a "limited-access highway ... constructed under the supervision of [CDOT]"). If CDOT were exempt from local control, parts of the AASIA would be meaningless. See Colo. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Menor, 166 P.3d 205, 212 (Colo.App.2007) (a court should not interpret a statute so as to render any part of it meaningless).

3. Absurdity

CDOT predicts that if we apply the statutory definition (and thereby subject it to regulation under the AASIA), cities and counties will adopt burdensome schemes that will lead to protracted delays, loss of federal funding, loss of uniformity in the highway system, and other procedural and financial hardships. It suggests that, to avoid such absurd results, we must recognize that it is not a "person" under the AASIA.

We reject this suggestion. Although we must avoid interpretations that lead to absurd results, see Alvarado v. People, 132 P.3d 1205, 1207 (Colo.2006), we do not agree that the potential results are absurd.

Every legislature must grapple with the problem of unintended consequences. If a statute gives rise to undesirable results, the legislature must determine the remedy. Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60, 51 S.Ct. 49, 75 L.Ed. 156 (1930). Courts may not rewrite statutes to improve them. Badaracco v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 464 U.S. 386, 398, 104 S.Ct. 756, 78 L.Ed.2d 549 (1984). We therefore will disregard unambiguous statutory language only when the resultant absurdity is "so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense." Crooks, 282 U.S. at 60, 51 S.Ct. 49.

Here, the potential results do not justify a departure from the AASIA's unambiguous language. CDOT's dire predictions may not come true, possibly because local governments may choose to act reasonably. But even if CDOT's forecast is accurate, the situation will not be so difficult as to shock the general or moral common sense. The problem, if it arises, is one that the legislature is well equipped to address.

B. The Schemes Do Not Conflict

CDOT advances this alternative argument: To the extent that the AASIA would allow local governments to regulate CDOT's activities, the act has been implicitly repealed. CDOT's position rests on two premises: (1) by allowing local control over CDOT's core functions, the AASIA necessarily conflicts with the transportation scheme set forth in Title 43; and (2) if the two schemes conflict, Title 43 prevails because its provisions are more specific and more recently enacted.

We conclude that CDOT's argument fails on its first premise because the two schemes do not necessarily conflict.

If possible, we will construe statutes to avoid inconsistency. City of Florence v. Pepper, 145 P.3d 654, 657 (Colo.2006). Only if the statutory language is irreconcilable will we apply the doctrine of "repeal by implication." Id.; Moran v. Carlstrom, 775 P.2d 1176, 1183 (Colo.1989) (statutes do not conflict if it is possible to give...