|
Provisions for the general organization and structure of statutory municipalities include:
<br />• Cities, mayor —council form: C.R.S. §§ 31-4-101 to 31-4-113.
<br />• Cities, council—manager form: C.R.S. §§ 31-4-201 to 31-4-221.
<br />• Towns: C.R.S. §§ 31-4-301 to 31-4-307.
<br />Traditionally, the legislative classification of statutory municipalities as cities or towns is based on population. A town
<br />has a population of 2,000 or fewer; a city has a population of more than 2,000. Towns or cities that gained or lost
<br />population, but not reorganized as cities or towns, respectively, will be exceptions to this rule as reorganization is
<br />optional.' The differences between statutory cities and towns are mostly a matter of structure and organization. Only
<br />a few differences exist between the substantive powers and the operational structure of cities and towns.
<br />Territorial charter municipality. Georgetown is Colorado's only municipality incorporated by a territorial charter
<br />granted by the territorial legislature prior to statehood.
<br />Home rule municipalities. In comparison to statutory municipalities, home rule municipalities enjoy broader powers
<br />and have greater governmental flexibility not dependent on state legislation. Home rule municipalities derive their
<br />powers not from state statutes, but rather Section 6 of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution.
<br />The Colorado municipal home rule doctrine may be summarized as follows:
<br />• In matters of purely local and municipal concern, ordinances adopted by home rule municipalities supersede
<br />conflicting state statutes.'
<br />• In matters of mixed statewide and local concern, state statutes and home rule municipal ordinances may
<br />co -exist if they do not conflict. If they do conflict, the state statute will be deemed controlling.'
<br />• In matters of purely statewide concern, municipal legislation is totally preempted.10
<br />The implementation of home rule authority available under Article XX requires the adoption of a home rule charter. In
<br />light of the provision in Article XX that states it is "self-executing," the courts have held that home rule cities and
<br />towns have been constitutionally granted every power possessed by the General Assembly as to local and municipal
<br />matters. The function of a municipal home rule charter only limits the otherwise plenary powers of home rule
<br />municipalities under Article XX.
<br />Thus, home rule charters in Colorado are documents of limitation, not documents of authorization. Actions of a home
<br />rule municipality cannot violate the charter's express limitations, but they need not be authorized specifically by it."
<br />Often, express grants of power do appear in the charter. Statutes concerning the procedures for adopting, amending,
<br />and repealing home rule charters appear at C.R.S. §§ 31-2-201 to 31-2-225 and in Article XX, Section 9, of the
<br />Colorado Constitution.
<br />Absent a constitutional or charter provision limiting a city council's or town board's authority in a given area, the
<br />council or board may legislate by ordinance with respect to any local or municipal matter. The fact that the particular
<br />ordinance was not authorized by charter is no ground for challenging an otherwise valid ordinance. An exception to
<br />this rule concerns the matter of assessing, levying, and collecting taxes and special assessments, which Article XX,
<br />§ 6(g) expressly requires to be provided for by charter. Moreover, if a home rule municipality does not legislate by
<br />charter provision or by ordinance, relevant state laws in that area will apply. 12
<br />State statutes concerning matters of mixed statewide and local concern, and matters determined to be of purely
<br />statewide concern, will be held to supersede conflicting ordinances of a home rule municipality.13 However, the
<br />courts have held that in purely local and municipal matters, home rule cities may pass ordinances that supersede
<br />7 See the definitions of "city" and "town" at C.R.S. §§ 31-1-101(2) and (13). Statutes dealing with the classification of cities and towns,
<br />including procedures for reorganizing due to changes in population, appear at C.R.S. §§ 31-1-201 to 31-1-207.
<br />8 City & Cty. of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo. 1990) See also City & Cty. of Denver v. Hallett, 83 P. 1066 (Colo. 1905);
<br />Mauff v. People, 123 P. 101 (Colo. 1912).
<br />9 Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo. 1990). See also DeLong v. Denver, 576 P.2d 537 (Colo.1978); C. & M. Sand & Gravel v.
<br />Bd. of Cty. Commr's, Boulder, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1983).
<br />10 Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo. 1990).
<br />11 Contrast this situation with that of the territorial charters, discussed above. See also People ex rel. McQuaid v. Pickens, 12 P.2d 349
<br />(1932). But see Fellows v. LaTronica, 377 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1962) (discussing implied charter limitations).
<br />12 COLO. CoNST. art. XX, § 6; Vela v. People, 484 P.2d 1204 (Colo. 1971).
<br />13 Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764,767 (Colo. 1990); see also Woolverton v. City & Cty. of Denver, 361 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1961); Vela v.
<br />People, P.2d 1204 (Colo. 1971).
<br />Heather Balser / City of Louisville
<br />OrdeCopyright
<br />201 by
<br />rder Date: to/s vzol9 COLORADO MUNCIPAL GOVERNMENT. AN INTRODUCTION
<br />Copyright by C�
<br />
|