Four-County Metropolitan Capital Imp. Dist. v. Board of County Com'rs of Adams County
| Decision Date | 13 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | FOUR-COUNTY,No. 20114,20114 |
| Citation | 369 P.2d 67,149 Colo. 284 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; Robert S. Wham, Frank K. Southworth, James M. Small, Willard M. Greim, Morgan Guenther, Walter Kestich, Gail Cilbert, David Dunklee, Joe Lewis, Malcolm O'Shea, Del J. Cimyott and Hibert B. Meyer, as members of the Board of Directors of the said Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District, and Edward Philip Kurz, Executive Director of said District, Petitioners, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF ADAMS, State of Colorado, City of Brighton, Colorado, City of Aurora, Colorado, J. V. Overstake, Dell A. Styers, H. C. Snyder, Edgar Knox, The District Court In and For the County of Adams and State of Colorado, and Hon. Clifford J. Gobble, Judge, thereof, Respondents, P. R. Hamilton, Arthur Ray Phillips, John L. Kane, Joseph M. Harris, Clarence A. Rutz, The Town of Bennett and The Town of Deer Trial, Intervenors. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Fred M. Winner, Pierpont Fuller, John M. Evans, Denver, for petitioners.
William Pehr, County Atty. for Adams County, Westminster, Charles Ginsberg, Sp. Counsel for Adams County, Denver, for Bd. of County Comrs. of Adams County.
Orrel A. Daniel, City Atty., Brighton, for Brighton.
Edward A. Brown, Leonard H. McCain, Brighton, for taxpayers and old age pensioners.
Bernard V. Berardini, City Atty., Aurora, for Aurora.
David J. Hahn, Bentley M. McMullin, Aurora, for intervenors.
In this proceeding we are required to determine whether the Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District, the creation of which was authorized by S. L. 1961, chapter 179, can constitutionally exercise the powers purportedly bestowed on it by the terms of said Act. Numerous grounds of alleged invalidity of the Act have been presented in extended oral argument and in the written briefs of counsel who have appeared on behalf of those whose interests are involved. A substantial number of the asserted grounds of invalidity raise questions of substance involving fundamental concepts of constitutional law affecting the basic foundations of our system of government.
There exists a state of emergency in that the public embraced within the district is presently required to pay a tax, with reference to which little or no practicable means are available to secure a refund if it be determined that the imposition thereof cannot lawfully be made. For this reason we resolve the issue of validity of the statute solely upon the single proposition hereinafter discussed. By so ding we do not pass upon any of the numerous arguments which have been made on other points. Although a general knowledge of the provisions of the act of the legislature is essential to a thorough understanding of our conclusion, we incorporate herein only those sections which bear directly upon the issue on which the controversy is decided.
The Act of the legislature involved will be referred to as the 'statute'. Section 1 consists of a declaration by the General Assembly relating to the purposes to be served and the objectives to be achieved under the statute. We quote the section in full:
'Legislative declaration.--The general assembly hereby finds, determines and declares that local governmental units within the metropolitan areas of this state have common problems and needs which transcend the boundaries of such local governmental units; that as metropolitan areas become urbanized the need for capital improvements increases at an accelerated rate; that modern means of communication and transportation and the attendant mobility of population have transformed metropolitan areas into homogeneous areas in which ease of movement is an absolute necessity and in which capital improvements must be geared to the needs of the entire area; that capital improvements in any part of a metropolitan area inure to the benefit of the entire area, as well as to the people of the state; and that there is need for coordination of overall planning, financing and construction of capital improvements and for the acquisition of capital equipment in order to enable local governmental units to cope with the problems of urbanization and to provide benefits to the entire metropolitan area.
'It is also found, determined and declared to be in the interest of the people of the state to enable towns, cities, counties and cities and counties in metropolitan areas to acquire capital equipment which will enhance their ability to provide emergency services for the benefit of the entire metropolitan area and to enable them to meet the problems arising in the event of disaster in any part of such area.
We readily agree that problems in urban areas exist and we observe that they always have and will continue to exist; that 'financing and construction of capital improvements' and the acquisition of 'capital equipment in order to enable local government units to cope with the problems of urbanization' raise problems for which solutions are desirable. We have no hesitancy, however, in asserting that any act of the legislature which is adopted as a means to bring about a solution of these local problems must not involve the exercise of legislative power which the people, by constitutional provision, have very clearly stated the General Assembly shall not have.
Constitutional limitations upon the exercise of power cannot be swept aside or ignored to aid in the solution of problems in a manner pleasing to those officials who have the burden of finding solutions. Ours is a government by law, not a government by men. That which cannot be done because of constitutional limitations upon the power of officeholders, simply cannot be done, either directly or indirectly, notwithstanding that desirable, social or economic ends might be achieved by ignoring the limitations, and despite the unquestioned good intentions of those seeking to exercise the powers thus forbidden.
The statute in question purports to authorize the formation of Metropolitan Capital Improvement Districts. It is quite evident that the only area in which such a district would be formed is the Denver urban area, and that the City and County of Denver and all three surrounding counties must be incorporated within the district. The statute provides that an election shall be held throughout the proposed district (following preliminary organization proceedings which are not in any way material to the issues in this case). We take notice of the fact that in the instant case an election was held to determine whether a district as authorized by the statute should be formed, and that each of the counties surrounding Denver rejected the proposed district. A sufficient number of voters in Denver to overcome the adverse vote in the adjoining counties approved the district and thus the Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District was created and a Board of Directors selected as provided by the statute. Perhaps the most significant power of the district to be exercised by its directors, as provided by the statute, was as follows:
(Then follows a list of items ecempted from the tax.)
Among other powers conferred upon the district, to be exercised by its Board of Directors who are selected from the several counties and municipalities as provided by the statute, we find the following:
'Section 13-(5) To acquire and dispose of real and personal property, in accordance with the declared purposes of the district; including, without limitation, rights and interest in property, leases and easements necessary to the construction of capital improvements and acquisition of capital equipment, provided, that the district shall not construct any capital improvement or acquire any item of capital equipment, other than for the administrative needs of the district, unless the same has been requested by one or more local units [counties or municipalities within the district] as hereinafter provided, nor unless such request has been approved by the board of directors; and provided further, that the district in the exercise of its powers and authority and in the performance of its functions shall be subject to the planning, zoning, sanitation and building laws, or ordinances and regulations, applicable to the locality in which such powers and authority are exercised and such functions are performed.
'(6) To have management, supervision and control of the construction of capital improvements and acquisition and installation of capital equipment requested by local units and undertaking in accordance with the terms of this act.
'(7) To employ and retain such employees, agents, engineers and attorneys as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the district, and to determine and fix the compensation thereof.
'(8) To have and exercise the power of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. City and County of Denver
...of Denver v. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist., 696 P.2d 730, 740 (Colo.1985); Four-County Capital Metro. Improvement Dist. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 149 Colo. 284, 294, 369 P.2d 67, 72 (1962). If a matter is of statewide concern, a home-rule municipality is precluded from acting. C......
-
Community Communications Company, Inc v. City of Boulder, Colorado
...Urban Renewal Authority v. Byrne, Colo., 618 P.2d 1374, 1381 (1980), quoting Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District v. Board of County Comm'rs, 149 Colo. 284, 294, 369 P.2d 67, 72 (1962) (emphasis in original). The Byrne court went on to state that "by virtue of Article XX, a......
-
Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005, In re
..."[t]hat which is of common knowledge to an interested public can be judicially noticed." Four-County Metro. Capital Improvement Dist. v. Board of Comm'rs, 149 Colo. 284, 296, 369 P.2d 67, 73 (1962). Finally, in considering interrogatories propounded to the court by the senate, this court to......
-
Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colo., 80-1348
...Springs, 575 P.2d 835 (Colo.), Security Life and Accident Co. v. Temple, 177 Colo. 14, 492 P.2d 63, and Four-County Met. C.I. Dist. v. Board of County Com'rs., 149 Colo. 284, 369 P.2d 67. In the Four-County Metro case the court stated that the home rule cities in Colorado as to local matter......
-
Chapter 6 - § 6.7 JUDICIAL NOTICE
...the court or by the general public, but only by the "interested public." Four-County Metro. Capital Improvement Dist. v. Board of Comm'rs, 369 P.2d 67, 73 (Colo. 1962); One Hour Cleaners v. ICAO, 914 P.2d 501, 504 (Colo. App. 1995). ➢ Procedure; Required Versus Discretionary Notice. For a c......
-
Chapter 6 - § 6.7 • JUDICIAL NOTICE
...the court or by the general public, but only by the "interested public." Four-County Metro. Capital Improvement Dist. v. Board of Comm'rs, 369 P.2d 67, 73 (Colo. 1962); One Hour Cleaners v. ICAO, 914 P.2d 501, 504 (Colo. App. 1995). ➢ Procedure; Required Versus Discretionary Notice. For a c......
-
Land Use Legislation: H.b. 1034 and H.b. 1041
...Pierce v. Denver, No. 27393 (Colo. Sup. Ct. June 27, 1977), and Four County Metro. Capital Improvement Dist. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 149 Colo. 284, 369 P.2d 67 (1963). This provision confers on home-rule cities every power possessed by the general assembly in granting charters generally, ......
-
A Primer on Municipal Home Rule in Colorado
...v. City of Thornton, 553 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1976). 12. See, Four County Metropolitan Capital Improvement Dist. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 369 P.2d 67 (Colo. 1962). This case stands as authority for at least the following propositions: 1) a legislative declaration contained in a state that the s......