In re City of Colorado Springs v. Board of Commissioners of County of Pueblo, Case No. 06SA162 (Colo. 11/13/2006)
| Decision Date | 13 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 06SA162. |
| Parties | In Re: CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a Colorado municipal corporation and home rule city, for and on behalf of COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES, part of the City of Colorado Springs, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PUEBLO. Defendant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
El Paso County District Court, Case No. 05CV4666. Honorable Edward S. Colt, Judge.
Opinion modified, and as modified, Petition for Rehearing DENIED.
City of Colorado Springs, a Colorado municipal corporation and home rule city, for and on behalf of Colorado Springs Utilities, part of the City of Colorado Springs v. The Board of Commissioners of the County of Pueblo
— Venue — C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2) — C.R.C.P. 98(a) — Land Use Regulations — H.B. 1041 — Activities of State Interest — § 24-65.1-101, C.R.S. (2006)
This case involves a determination of the proper venue for a lawsuit concerning the validity of H.B. 1041 land use regulations passed pursuant to § 24-65.1-10, C.R.S. (2006) by the Pueblo County Board of Commissioners.
The Supreme Court affirms the trial courts' decision to transfer venue from the El Paso County District Court to the Pueblo County District Court. Under C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2), when an action involves a public officer's failure to perform his or her duties as required by law, venue is proper in the county where the officers performed the challenged action. Because the City of Colorado Springs sought declaratory relief to invalidate the Pueblo County Commissioners' regulations in regard to its project that crossed Pueblo County, the Supreme Court concludes that venue is proper where the challenged actions occurred, which is Pueblo County.
The Court rejects the City's argument that the regulations affect utilities within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 98(a), and venue is proper in El Paso County. The substance and primary purpose of the City's complaint is to render the land use regulations inapplicable. Thus, its request for relief does not involve questions related to the title, lien, injury, quality, or possession of utilities within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 98(a).
David R. Eason, James L. Kurtz-Phelan, Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C., Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Pursuant to C.A.R. 21, we exercised original jurisdiction to determine whether the El Paso County District Court and the Pueblo County District Court erred when they ruled that venue of this action is properly in the Pueblo County District Court.1 We hold that the trial courts correctly determined that venue for this lawsuit is in the Pueblo County District Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2), and we discharge the rule.
In 1990 the City of Colorado Springs ("City"), located in El Paso County, began a regional water delivery project, the Southern Delivery System ("SDS"), designed to increase its water supply and storage. The SDS plans required facilities that cross through a small portion of Pueblo County and a larger portion of El Paso County.2
The Board of Commissioners of Pueblo County ("Pueblo County Board") adopted a resolution in 2005 that changed its existing land use regulations regarding the permitting and designation of municipal and industrial water projects.3
Based on the Pueblo County Board's decision to change its regulations, the City filed a complaint in the district court for El Paso County seeking a declaration that the new regulations were "ineffective, invalid and/or unenforceable" with respect to the SDS project. The Pueblo County Board moved to transfer venue to the Pueblo County District Court under C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2). After briefing, the El Paso County District Court entered an order transferring venue to the Pueblo County District Court. Subsequently, the City requested that the district court in Pueblo County vacate the order and transfer the action back to the district court in El Paso County. The Pueblo court denied the City's motion.
The City then filed a petition for an original proceeding in this court, requesting that we order transfer of this case back to the district court in El Paso County.
We hold that the trial courts correctly determined that venue for this lawsuit is in the Pueblo County District Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2).
Under C.A.R. 21(a), we may exercise original jurisdiction to review whether a trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Sytsma, 67 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003); Millet v. Dist. Court, 951 P.2d 476 (Colo. 1998). Issues involving venue directly affect the trial court's jurisdiction and authority to proceed with a case. Millet, 951 P.2d at 477. When reviewing a trial court's venue determination, we are concerned with avoiding "the delay and expense involved in a re-trial of the case if the change of venue was improperly denied." Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Dist. Court, 632 P.2d 1017, 1020 (Colo. 1981) [hereinafter Eagle I] (citing Jameson v. Dist. Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946)).
The General Assembly in 1974 adopted the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act4 ("the Act"), known as H.B. 1041 and currently codified at section 24-65.1-101, et seq., C.R.S. (2006), for the purpose of protecting the utility, value, and future of all lands within the state as a matter of public interest, section 24-65.1-101(1)(a). The Act provides, in part, that the General Assembly "shall describe areas which may be of state interest and activities which may be of state interest and establish criteria for the administration of such areas and activities." § 24-65.1-101(2)(a).
In addition, the Act delegates authority to local governments to designate and administer areas and activities of state interest. § 24-65.1-101(2)(b); City & County of Denver v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 782 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1989) [hereinafter Eagle II]. "The Act thus allows both state and local governments to supervise land use which may have an impact on the people of Colorado beyond the immediate scope of the land use project." Eagle II, 782 P.2d at 755.
Site selection and construction of major facilities involving public utilities and the efficient utilization of both municipal and industrial water projects may be designated by a local government as activities of state interest. § 24-65.1-203(1)(f),(h). Once an activity is designated as one of state interest, the Act establishes guidelines for local government administration of the activity. §§ 24-65.1-401 to 404, C.R.S. (2006). The Act requires that "[a]ny person desiring to engage in the development in an area of state interest . . . shall file an application for a permit with the local government in which such development is to take place." § 24-65.1-501(1)(a). A local government may deny the permit if the proposed activity does not comply with the locally adopted guidelines and regulations. § 24-65.1-501(4).
In Eagle II, we upheld the constitutionality of the Act's provisions allowing local governments to determine which activities are of state interest and then to regulate those activities. 782 P.2d at 758. In addition, we concluded that, because the Act requires local governments to comply with its provisions when adopting regulations and establishing permit application procedures, the Act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to local governments. Id. at 759-61.
The court of appeals has addressed the scope of permissible local regulations under the act. City of Colo. Springs v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Colo. App. 1994) (cert denied, 516 U.S. 1008(1995)). Given the fundamental objective of the Act to allow local governments to regulate designated matters of state interest, the court concluded that a county may "regulate construction of water diversion projects located within the county but which transport water to end users outside the county." Id.
Here, the Pueblo County Board revised its local regulations, pursuant to the Act, addressing site selection and construction of major new domestic water projects. The revisions designated the "efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects" as a matter of state and local interest. Pueblo County, Land Code, ch. 17.164.010, 17.172.010 (Sept. 2005). The regulations prohibit the "development, including construction, expansion, reoperation [sic], or other significant change of use, of a municipal and/or industrial water project wholly or partially within unincorporated Pueblo County, without first obtaining a permit . . . ." Id. at ch. 17.172.010. The revised regulations also set forth detailed criteria for obtaining a permit.
The City's complaint in this case requests a declaration that the Pueblo County Board's regulations are invalid because the provisions were designed to impact the SDS project, which is located primarily in El Paso County, and the regulations attempted to extend the Board's regulatory power beyond its territorial jurisdiction.5 To determine if the trial courts erroneously transferred venue to Pueblo County, we analyze the applicability of C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2) and 98(a) to this case.
Venue
Under C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2)6, venue is proper "in the county where the claim, or some part thereof, arose," when the action involves a public officer's failure to perform his or her duties as required by law. Accordingly, venue is proper in the county where the officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial