## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S e p t e m b e r26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
STEP HEN SCHU LZ, DA RREN BL OOM, WI L L I AM CL AR K, S TE VEN DEAL, S EAN HARPE R, T IM O T H Y L A M B E R T , C R A IG M OR TENSON , SARA PI ERCE, RA CH AE L S L OAN, BR I AN S M I T H, M I CH AEL STOG SDI LL, J ENN I FER ANDE RS ON, DE NI S E AR NE S ON, K E V IN B L U M E N S H IN E , T R A V IS CH AP M AN, CA S E Y C L OUD, S H A Y N E D O M B R O W S K I, M I CH E L E GOL DM AN, L UKE J ASSO, TOD D LA ND I N, M I CH AEL M AJ OR , J ON ATH ON M I CH AEL, S CO T T OP I E , ANT HONY P RI OL A, AR T UR O R AM I RE Z , T RO Y R E E D, S US AN HOG G, AM Y HE NNI ON, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. CI TY O F LON GM ON T, CO L OR ADO, D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. N o. 04- 1418

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D . C . N o. 03- W Y - 1552- A J)
D ar ol d W
. K i l l m er( M ar i N ew m an, w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , K i l l m er , L ane & N ew m an, L L P , D env er, C olor ado , for Plai nti ffs-A pp el l ants .2

A nd rew D
. R i ng el (Th om as J. L y on s, w i th h i m on the b ri ef), H al l & E van s, L .L .C ., D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e . B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.
EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.
D ue t o decl i ni ng r evenue s , t he C i tyof Longm ont , C ol or ado ( “the C i ty ”) im p o se d a sa lar yf

re e z e o n its e m p lo y e e s fo r th e y e a r 2 0 0 3 . P lain tiffs-A p p e llan ts ( “the O ffi cer s ”) , m ember s of Longm ont ’ s fi r e and pol i ce de part m ent s , s ued the C i t y , al l egi ng t hatw hen the C i t yhi r ed them, i thad pr om i s ed ea ch of them annual payi ncr eas es forappr oxi m at el yt he fi r s tt hr ee y ear s of thei rempl oym ent . T he O ffi cer s , w ho w er e el i gi bl e fors uch an a nnual payi ncr eas e i n 2003, cl ai m ed that t he C i t y , byi m pos i ng t he 2003 s al aryfr eez e, 1) br eac hed i t s empl oym entcontr act
w i t h t hes e O ffi cer s ; 2) i n t he al t ernat i ve, w as bound bypr om i s s or yes t oppel pr i nci pl es t o gi ve the O ffi cer s a payi ncr eas e fort haty ear ; and 3) had depr i ved th e O ffice rs o f

a p ro p e rtyin ter e st w ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss . W e c o n c lu d e th a t, beca us e underC ol or ado l aw anypr om i s es m ade t o the O ffi cer s att he t i m e the C ityh ire d th e m c o u ld n o t b in d f u tu re C ityC o u n c ils, the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly grant ed the C i t ysum m aryj ud gm ent on al l of these cl ai m s.

I
. BA CKGROUND T h e C ity p a y s its p o lic e o ffic e rs a n d fir e fig h te rs o n a s te p -p a ys y s te m .A ft era pol i ce offi cerr eac hes t he fourth pays t ep, t her e i s a fi fth “mast er 1 pol i ce offi cer ” s t ep ava i l abl e. T hats t ep, how ever , i s notaut om at i cal l yaw ar ded a n d is n o t th e s u bje c t o f th is litig a tio n . A pol i ce offi cer ’ s pr obat i onaryper i od l as t s betw een s i x and tw el ve 2 m o n th s . O rd in a n c e 3 .0 4 .1 6 0 (C ) sp e c ifica llyp ro v id e d th a t 3 [i ] f att he t i m e of the empl oy ee’ s annual per form ance rev iew the e x e c u tiv e d ire c to r o r d e s ig n e e d e ter m in e s th a t th e e m p lo y e e is per form i ng ata s at i s fac t or yl evel , the empl oy ee s hal l r ece i ve a pa y - s t ep i ncr eas e t o t he nexthi ghes tpays t ep unt i l the maxi m um ste p forthe sa la ryra n g e is re a c h e d . O n c e th e m a x im u m sa lar yp a y -ste p is achi eved, eac h empl oy ee sha l l cont i nue t o be r evi ew ed forper form ance a t le a s t e v e ry tw e lv e m o n th s . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) 3 T her e ar e four pay s t eps . T he C i tyal w ay s hi r es fi r efi ght er s atpays t ep one, 1
w hi l e pol i ce offi cer s r eac h s t ep one a ft ercompl et i ng a pr obat i onaryper i od. T he 2 C i t yal s o hi r es pol i ce offi cer s , butnotfi r efi ght er s , as l at er al t r ans fer s fr om pol i ce depart m ent s i n ot herci t i es and, as s uch, t he C i tygi ves t hos e O ffi cer s cr edi tfor th e irp ri o r e x p e ri e n c e w ith th o s e o th e r c itie s . A C i t yor di nance r equi r ed the C i tyt o m ove an O ffi cerup t o the nextpay
s t ep af t ert he O ffi cerhad compl et ed one y earata part i cul arpays t ep, s o l ong as th e O ffice r h a d p e rfo rm e d sa tisfa c to rily
. T h a t m e a n t th a t af ter a p p ro x im a tely 3 t hr ee y ear s of s at i s fac t or yper form ance , an O ffi cerw oul d r eac h the hi ghes tpay leve l, leve l fo u r. T h e O fficers as sert th at th e C ityw as a b le t o rec ruitan d h ir e
n ew o fficers at low er sa lari es th an o ther c o m p ara b le cit ies b ec au se th e C ity ’sT he 2003 budgetw as fort he C i ty ’ s fi s cal y ear2003, w hi ch r an fr om 4 J a n u a ry 1 to D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 3
. T h e C ityw a s b e tter a b le to m a k e a o n e -tim e $ 5 0 0 p a ym e n t to a ll C ity 5 empl oy ees beca us e s uch a “ one- t i m e” pa ym entcoul d come fr om a “one
- t i m e” f u n d in g so u rc e , su c h a s a b u d g e t su rp lu s. B u t th e C ity , b yits o w n p o licy , co u ld onl ypays al aryi ncr eas es , w hi ch w oul d be ongoi ng once a w ar ded, fr om ongoi ng o r o p e ra tin g re v e n u e s , s u c h a s s a le s ta x re v e n u e s . T her e w er e exc ept i ons t o the w age f r eez e. Forexampl e, t he C i tyw as 6 re q u ire d b ylaw to g iv e its a p p re n tice e lec trica l w o rk e rs a n in c re a se : A ppr enti ce li nemen oper at e undera w r i t t en documentappr oved bythe sta te D e p a rtm e n t o f

L a b o r. A n d if

th e yc o m p lete th e re q u ire m e n ts underw hi che v er l evel t heyar e i n thatappr ent i ce pr ogr am, . . . atthat t i m e t heyw ou l d h ave b een eli gibl e for m ov em ent, becau se th e re w as a w r i t t en appr oved pl an thats ai d thattheynee ded t o do t hatt o keep that p rog ram eli g ible u n d er the stat e D ep artm en t of L ab o r. I n addi t i on, t he C i tyC ounci l m ade e xcept i ons fr om t he w age f r eez e for (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 co m p en sati o n p lan a ll o w ed the O fficers to rea ch the h igh est p ayleve l m o re q u ic k ly th a n o ffic e rs in o th e r c itie s . In 2 0 0 2 , the C ityw a s fa c in g a d e c lin e in re v e n u e s. In lig h t o f th a t, th e C ity
m a n a g e r, alo n g w ith o th e r C itya d m in istra to rs, p ro p o se d to th e L o n g m o n t C ity C o u n c il ( “ C o u n c il” ) a 2 0 0 3 b u d g e t th a t f ro z e th e w a g e s o f

a ll c ity e m p lo y e e s . 4 T he pr opos ed budgetdi d i ncl ude a “ one t i m e paym entof $500 perr egul ar empl oy ee i n appr eci at i on of thei rhar d w or k and dedi cat i on t o the or gani zat i on d u rin g th is d ifficu lt fin a n c ial p e rio d .” A f ter se v e ra l w e e k s o f

stu d ya n d p u b lic 5
co m m en t and d iscu ssion , the C ityC o u n cil ap p rov ed the p rop o sed b u d g et. In adopt i ng t hi s budgetand i t s w age f r eez e, t he C ounci l al s o s us pended the

6(
. . . cont i nued) 6 “empl oy ees comi ng off pr obat i on, empl oy ees w ho w er e pr om ot ed t o a hi gherpay r ange pe rt he per s onnel rul es , [and] gr ant - funded pos i t i ons . ” 5 o rd in a n c e re q u ir in g th e C ity to g iv e a n n u a l s te p in c re a s e s . T he C i t y ’s revenu e short fal l for 20 03 w as not as dir e as predi ct ed. A s a
r es ul t , t he C i t yC ounci l appr oved a 2004 budge tt hati ncl uded s t ep i ncr eas es for
a ll O ffice rs e lig ib le fo r th e m a n d re in sta ted th e o rd in a n c e re q u irin g th e C ityto g iv e e lig ib le O ffic e rs a n a n n u a l in c re a s e . T w enty - ei ghtO ffi cer s w ho w er e due t o r ece i ve s t ep i ncr eas es i n 2003, but
w h o d i d n o tr e c e i v e t h e m b e c a u s e o f t h e w a g e f

r e e z e , fi l e d s u i ta g a i n s tt h e C i t y, al l egi ng: 1) br eac h of contr act ; 2) pr om i s s oryes t oppel ; and 3) depr i vat i on of a p r o p e r t yr i g h twi t h o u td u e p r o c e s s . Th e Offi c e r s a s s e r t e d t h e i rfi r s tt wo c l a i ms underC ol or ado l aw and thei rdue pr oces s cl ai m under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983. T he O ffi cer s expr es s l ybas ed thei rcl ai m s , noton the C i ty ’ s or di nance r equi r i ng the C i t yt o payannual s t ep i ncr eas es , butonl yon r epr es ent at i ons t he O ffi cer s s ayt he C itym ad e w h en ith ir ed them p rom isi n g an n u al pa yincre ase s. T h e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed the C i t ys um m aryj udgm enton al l t hr ee c l ai m s . T he O ffi cer s now appea l f r o m th a td e c i s i o n . Ha v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e rt h i s a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1 , w e A F F IR M
.

I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T hi s cour tr evi ew s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm entdeci s i on de novo,T h e O ffice rs b o re th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g th a t th e C ityh a d p ro m ise d to 7 payeac h of them an annual s t ep i ncr eas e forappr oxi m at el yt he fi r s tt hr ee y ear s of t hei rempl oym ent . See El l i ot tv. C ol o. D ep’ tof C or r . , 865 P. 2d 859, 860- 61 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1993) ( agr eei ng w i th pl ai nt i ff thats he has bur den of pr ovi ng exi s t ence of contr act ) ; L ut t gen v. Fi s cher , 107 P. 3d 1152, 1155 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t “a p lain tiff m u st d e m o n stra te ju stifiab le r e lian c e o n th e a c ts ors t at ement s of anothert o s ucce ed on cl ai m s of pr om i s s oryes t oppel ”) ; K oerpel v . H ec k ler, 7 9 7 F
. 2 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 3 , 8 6 5 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ) (ho lding p lai n ti ff b ea rs bur den of pr ovi ng he has a pr opertyi nt er es tpr ot ect ed bydue pr oces s )
. For purpos es of thi s appea l , w e w i l l as s um e thatt he O ffi cer s pr es ent ed s uffi ci ent ev iden ce to m ee t th is bu rde n . T h e d istri ct co u rt , in g ran ti n g the C itysu m m ary j udgm ent , expr es s ed s om e s kept i ci s m as t o w hethert he O ffi cer s had ac tual l ym et t hei rbur den of a s s ert i ng evi dence t hatt he C i tym ade s uch pr om i s es t o eac h of the Offi c e r s . We s h a r e t h a ts k e p t i c i s m. Ne v e r th e l e s s , a s e x p l a i n e d mo r e f u l l yb e l o w, even a s s um i ng t he O ffi cer s w er e abl e t o es t abl i s h thatt he C i tym ade s uch pr om i s es , C ol or ado l aw w oul d i n anyeventpr ecl ude the O ffi cer s ’ r el i ance on th o s e p ro m is e s . T h e re fo re , w e tu rn d ir e c tly to th a t is s u e . 6 vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party . See R o b e rts v . P rin tu p , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e onl y“i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a jud g m en t as a m att er o f law
. ” F ed
. R
. C iv. P. 56 (c). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . C l ai m s as s e r t e d unde r C ol or ado l aw for br e ac h of c ont r ac t and p r o m iss o r y e sto p p e l. T he O ffi cer s al l ege thatt he pr om i s es t he C i tym ade t o payannual s t ep 7 i ncr eas es r es ul t ed i n a contr actual obl i gat i on or , i n the al t ernat i ve, coul d beC ol or ado l aw r ecogni zes bot h “expr es s contr act [s ]
. . . evi dence d byt he 8 p arti es’ w ri tt en o r ora l w o rds,” a s w ell as c o n tr ac ts i m p li ed in fac t, w h ich a re “bas ed on the conduc tof the part i es t o the agr eement . ” A gr i tr ack, I nc. v. D eJ ohn H o u sem o v ing , Inc
. , 2 5 P
. 3 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 2 (C o lo. 20 0 1 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). “In bot h cas es , a contr acti s cr eat ed byt he meet i ng of the mi nds t o contr actw i th eac h ot her , ” and “ [t ] her e i s no di ffe r ence i n l egal effectbetw een e xpr es s and i m pl i ed i n fac tcon t ract s. ” Id. (quotat i on om i t t ed). In ei ther case, i ti s the O ffi cers ’ bur den t o pr ove the exi s t ence of a c ontr act . See El l i ot t , 865 P. 2d at860- 61. A l t ernat i vel y , i f the O ffi cer s ar e unabl e t o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of a c o n tr a c t, th e ym ig h t s till r e c o v e r u n d e r a th e o ry o f p ro m is s o ry e s to p p e l. “Pr om i s s or yes t oppel i s an ext ens i on of the bas i c contr actpr i nci pl e thatone w ho m akes pr om i s es m us tbe r equi r ed t o keep them. ” Pat zerv. C i tyof Lovel and, 80 P .3 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 2 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). T he el ement s of pr om i s s oryes t oppel ar e: ( 1) t he pr om i s orm ade a pr om i s e t o t he pr om i s ee; ( 2) t he pr om i s ors houl d r eas onabl yhave expec t ed thatt he pr om i s e w oul d i nduce a ct i on orforbear ance byt he p ro m ise e ; (3 ) th e p ro m ise e in fa c t re a so n a b lyre lied o n th e p ro m ise to th e p ro m ise e ’s d e trim e n t; an d (4 ) th e p ro m ise m u st b e e n fo rc e d to pr eventi nj us t i ce. Id. T o recov er unde r a theo ryof p rom i ssoryest op pel, t hen , t he O ffi cers “m ust demonstr at e [thei r ] j us t i fi abl e r el i ance on the ac t s ors t at ement s ” made byt he C ity. L u ttg e n , 1 0 7 P .3 d a t 1 1 5 5
. 7 enfor ced agai ns t t he C i t y under a theory of pr om i s s or y es t oppel
. U nderC ol or ado 8 law , h o w e v e r, a m u n icip a lity ’s a u th o rityto e n ter in to c o n tra c tu a l o b lig a tio n s is ci r cumscr i bed bys t atut e and or di nance . See C ol o. Spr i ngs Fi r e Fi ght er s A s s ’ n v. C i t yof C ol o. Spr i ngs , 784 P. 2d 766, 773- 74 ( C ol o. 1989) ; s ee a l s o Shaw v. Sar gentSch. D i s t . N o. R E
- 33- J ex r el
. B d. of Educ. , 21 P. 3d 446, 449- 50 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2001)
. T hes e r es t r i ct i ons ar e i ncorpor at ed i nt o anycontr actt he
m uni ci pal i t ym akes
. See K eel i ng v. C i tyof G r and J unct i on, 689 P. 2d 679, 680 (C o lo. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); see also C o lo. I n v s. S erv s. , Inc
. v . C ityo f W estm inster,T he O ffi cer s r el yupon N or m andyE s t at es M etr opol i t an R ecr eat i on D i s t r i ct 9 v . N o rm a n d yE sta tes , L td ., 5 5 3 P .2 d 3 8 6 (C o lo . 1 9 7 6 ), an d se v e ra l o th e r c a se s, to ar gue that“C ol or ado court s have l ong hel d thata ci tym aynothi de behi nd a cl ai m of ul tr a vi r es c o n tra c t to a v o id its d u tyto ju stlyc o m p e n sa te fo r b e n e fits rec eive d u n d er a n ag ree m en t. ” T h ese ca ses o n w h ich th e O fficers rely , h o w ev er, a re d is tin g u is h a b le f

ro m th e s itu a tio n in th is a p p e a l. I n N or m andyE s t at es , t he C ol or ado Supr eme C our tw as conce rned w i th t he i nequi t i es t hatm ayoccurw hen a pr i vat e partyhas al r eadyconfe rr ed a be nefi ton a governm entent i t ypur s uantt o a contr actt hatturns outt o have be en cr eat ed c o n t r a r yt o t h a te n t i t y ’ s a u t h o r i t y . S e e 5 5 3 P
. 2 d a t3 8 9
. Th e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t, i n su c h a c a se , to p e rm it th e g o v e rn m e n t en tityto a v o id its obl i gat i ons underan unenfor cea bl e contr actw oul d perm i tan “undul yhar s h and i n e q u i t a b l e ” r e s u l t . I d
. Th e r e fo r e , i n No r ma n d yEs t a t e s , t h e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me C o u rt “ a d o p t[ e d ] w h a t ap p e a rs to b e th e p re v a ili n g ru le: th a t w h e re p ro p e rtyis furni s hed t o a muni ci pal corpor at i on underan unenfor cea bl e contr act , and the (c o n tin u e d ...) 8 636 P. 2d 1316, 1318 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1981)
. A nd any one thatcontr act s w i th a
m uni ci pal i t yi s char ged w i th cons truct i ve know l edge of thos e r es tr i ct i ons and, t her efor e, cannotcl ai m anyj us t i fi abl e r el i ance on r epr es ent at i ons m ade be y ond t he muni ci pal i t y ’ s contr actual author i ty . C ol o. Spr i ngs Fi r e Fi ght er s A s s ’ n, 784 P. 2d at774 ( hol di ng t hat“[p] er s ons deal i ng w i th the C i tyar e on cons truct i ve not i ce of

t he s cope of

author i t ypos s es s ed bythe muni ci pal offi ci al s w i th w hom t heyar e dea l i ng; ” furt herhol di ng that“[t ] hi s cons truct i ve not i ce i ncl udes the know l edge thatt he ci t ycounci l act ed pur s uantt o the author i tygr ant ed i tbythe ci t ychart erand s ubj ectt o t he l i m i t at i ons pr ovi ded ther ei n”) ; K eel i ng, 689 P. 2d at 6 8 0 (h o ld in g th a t “[ o ]n e w h o c o n tra c ts w ith a m u n icip a lityis c h a rg e d w ith kn ow l edg e of it s l i m i t at i on s and restri ct i on s i n m aking co ntr act s”) ; C olo. Invs. S erv s. , Inc
. , 6 3 6 P
. 2 d at 1 3 1 8 (sam e). 9(
. . . cont i nued) 9 m uni ci pal i t yhas notpai d fort he pr operty , then the s el l erorper s on s uppl y i ng t he p ro p e rt ym a y , u p o n e q u ita b le te rm s , re c o v e r i t I n s p e c ie .” Id
. T he othercas es r el i ed upon bythe O ffi cer s , M ount j oy& Fr ew en v. C hey enne Count yH i gh School D i s tr i ct , 240 P. 464, 464- 65 ( C ol o. 1925) , and C i t yof C ol or ado Spr i ngs v. C ol or ado C i ty , 94 P. 316, 316, 320 ( C ol o. 1908) , can s i m i l ar l ybe di s t i ngui s hed bec aus e i n eac h cas e the ci tyhad al r eadyr ece i ved and re tain e d th e b e n e fits p ro v id e d b yth e c o n tra c ts a n d o n lya f ter w a rd s s o u g h t to avoi d pay i ng fort hos e bene fi t s . Fur ther , thos e ca s es , deci ded more than se v e n ty -fiv e y e a rs a g o , m u st b e re a d in lig h t o f C o lo ra d o ’s m o d e rn a u th o rity d isc u ss e d a b o v e in th e tex t. H er e the O ffi cer s s oughtt o enfor ce w hatw as then a f utur e r i ghtt o a s t ep i ncr eas e, r athert han paym entfora bene fi tal r eadyconfe rr ed on the C i ty . T he C i t y appr oved t he 2003 budget , w i th i t s w age fr eez e, i n 2002; t her efor e, t he O ffi cer s knew befor e theyw or ked i n 2003 thatt heyw er e notgoi ng t o r ece i ve any step incre ase that y ea r. 9 A ppl y i ng t hes e pr i nci pl es , C ol or ado court s have s peci fi cal l ydet erm i ned t hatm uni ci pal i t i es r et ai n t he abi l i tyt o change the compens at i on and bene fi t s they pr ovi de t o t hei rempl oy ees . Forexampl e, i n K eel i ng, 689 P. 2d 679, the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s addr es s ed the manneri n w hi ch the C i tyof G r and J unct i on compensa t ed i t s pol i ce offi cer s and fi r efi ght er s . See i d. at680. G r and J unct i on h ad “initi ated an ed u ca ti o n al i n ce n ti v e p ayp rog ram , ” w h ich in cre ase d an o fficer’s bas e pay“w hen a pa r t i ci pantearned a s peci fi ed numberof col l ege c r edi t s and
acc um ul at ed a s peci fi ed numberof y ear s of l aw enfor cement[orfi r e fi ght i ng] exper i ence . ” I d. G r and J unct i on deci ded t o t erm i nat e thatpr ogr am and i ns t ead “equa l i ze[ ] t he s al ar i es of al l pol i ce offi cer s and fi r e[f i ght er s ] havi ng s i m i l arr ank and t i m e i n gr ade w i t hi n eac h depart m entw i thoutr egar d t o i ndi vi dual educa t i onal10

l evel s . ” I d. Sever al pol i ce offi cer s and fi r efi ght er s chal l enged the cha nge i n the
m anneri n w hi ch theyw er e t o be compens at ed, s ui ng G r and J unct i on forbr eac h of
c o n tr a c t a n d , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , re c o v e ry u n d e r p ro m is s o ry e s to p p e l p ri n c ip le s . S e e id
. T h e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls in K e e lin g n o ted th a t, l ik e L o n g m o n t’s C ity C ounci l , t he G r and J unct i on C i t yC ounci l w as “ves t ed w i th al l t he l egi s l at i ve p o w e r o f

th e C ity .” Id . T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t [a] ci t ycounci l , i n t he exe r ci s e of i t s l egi s l at i ve pow er , cannotent er i nt o a contr actw hi ch w i l l bi nd s ucce edi ng ci tycounci l s and ther eby d e p ri v e th e m o f

th e u n re s tr ic te d e x e rc is e o f th e irle g is la tiv e p o w e r. A m ong t he l egi s l at i ve pow er s of a c i tycounci l i s t he fi xi ng of sa lar ies o f

c itye m p lo y e e s. T h e re fo re , the G ra n d Ju n c tio n C ity C ounci l , bei ng ves t ed w i t h al l t he l egi s l at i ve pow erof the C i ty , had th e p o w e r to a d o p t a n e w p a yp lan se tti n g fo rth ra tes o f p a yfo r a ll c i t ye mp l o y e e s a n d t e r mi n a t i n g t h e p r i o rp r o g r a m. I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s , t her efor e, r ej ect ed the
a rg u m e n ts o f

th e o ffice rs a n d fire fig h ter s in K e e lin g th a t th e yw e re e n tit led to
rec o v er fo r bre ac h o f c o n tr ac t or, in the alt ern ati v e, un d er a theo ryo f p rom issory
e sto p p e l: O ne w ho contr act s w i t h a muni ci pal i tyi s char ged w i th know l edge of i t s l i m i t at i ons and r es t r i ct i ons i n m aki ng contr act s . T he exi s t i ng l aw a t th e tim e a n d p lac e o f th e m a k in g o f

th e c o n tra c t, i n c lu d in g th e c ity c h a rte r, b e c o m e s a p a rt o f th e c o n tra c t. C har ged w i t h know l edge thats ucce edi ng ci tycounci l s ar e not bound byt he l egi s l at i ve ac t s of thei rpr edec es s or s i n s et t i ng s al ar i es fo r c ity e m p lo y e e s , p la in tiffs c a n n o t p re v a il o n th e b a s is o f c o n tr a c t. B eca us e the fi xi ng of s al ar i es i s s ubj ectt o change and the r ece i ptof a s a l a r y i s c o n t i n g e n tu p o n c o n t i n u e d e m p l o ym e n tw i th t h e C i ty,C ol or ado l aw does r ecogni ze that“[a ] s t atut e oror di nance [ca n] be 10 (c o n tin u e d ...) 11 pl ai nt i ffs do nothave a ves t ed contr actual r i ghti n the cont i nuance of a part i cul arr at e orm ethod of compensa t i on. F o r th e sa m e re a so n s, p lain tiffs c o u ld n o t h a v e re a so n a b ly r el i ed upon cont i nui ng paym ent s underthe pr ogr am, and ther efor e, th e ir c laim s b a se d o n p ro m iss o rye sto p p e l m u st fa il. Id . a t 6 8 0 -8 1 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T he C ol or ado Supr eme C our tl at err el i ed on K eel i ng t o addr es s the manner in w h ich th e C ityo f

C o lo ra d o S p rin g s p ro v id e d m e d ica l b e n e fits to re tired c ity
e m p lo y e e s in C o lo ra d o S p ri n g s F ir e F ig h te rs A s s o c ia tio n , 7 8 4 P .2 d a t 7 7 3
. S im il ar to the step incre ase s at i ssu e in th is case , the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt not ed thatC ol or ado Spr i ngs ’ heal thcar e bene fi t s w as one of the fe atur es of the C i t y ’ s benef

i tpacka ge thatenabl ed the C i tybot h t o hi r e and r et ai n qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual s . I d. E s t abl i s hi ng and modi fy i ng “s uch an e m pl oy ee be nefi thas t r adi t i onal l ybeen w i t hi n t he s cope of l egi s l at i ve di s cr et i on. ” I d. I n thatcas e, t he C ol or ado Supr eme C our thel d t hata 1966 or di nance pr ovi di ng t hatC ol or ado S p rin g s w o u ld p a yth e h e a lth in su ra n c e p re m iu m s fo r its re tired e m p lo y e e s d id notpr ecl ude the C i t yfr om l at erpas s i ng anotheror di nance thati ns t ead l i m i t ed the C i t y ’ s contr i but i on t ow ar d i t s r et i r ed empl oy ees ’ heal th i ns ur ance . I d. at768- 69, 773- 74. I n r eac hi ng t hatconcl us i on, the C ol or ado C our tr el i ed on the fa ctthat t he C ol or ado Spr i ngs C i t yC ounci l , i n pas s i ng t he 1966 or di nance , di d noti nt end t o cr eat e a bi ndi ng contr actual r i ght ; t he C i tyC hart erpr ovi ded thatnei thert he 10(
. . . cont i nued) 10 cons i der ed a c ont r act , [but ] onl yw hen i t s l anguage and the s urr oundi ng c irc u m sta n c e s m a n ife st a leg isla tiv e in ten t to c re a te p riv a te c o n tra c tu a l rig h ts enfor cea bl e aga i ns tt he s t at e orm uni ci pal i ty . ” C ol o. Spr i ngs Fi r e Fi ght er s A s s ’ n, 7 8 4 P .2 d a t 7 7 3 . T h e re is a p re su m p tio n , h o w e v e r, “th a t a la w is n o t in ten d e d to cr eat e pr i vat e contr actual ves t ed r i ght s , butm er el ydecl ar es a pol i cyt o be pur s ued un t i l t he legi sl ature shal l ordai n o therw i se. ” Id. (quotat i on om i t t ed); see al so A l der t on v. St at e, 17 P. 3d 817, 819 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2000)
. A s m ent i oned pr evi ous l y , how ever , t he O ffi cer s expr es s l ydo notr el yon anyor di nance as the bas i s fort hei rcl ai m s t hatt heyhave a contr actual r i ghtt o r ece i ve annua l s t ep in c re a s e s . 12 C ityC o u n c il n o r a n yc itye m p lo y e e c o u ld in c u r a n yliab ili tyo n th e C ity ’s b e h a lf “unl es s and unt i l a def i ni t e amountof m oneys hal l have be en appr opr i at ed; ” and concl uded thati nt erpr et i ng t he 1966 or di nance t o bi nd C ol or ado Spr i ngs i n the futur e “w oul d i m pos e futur e l i abi l i tyupon the C i tybyr equi r i ng s ubs equent counci l s t o annual l yappr opr i at e the funds neede d t o fund the hea l th pr emi um obl i gat i ons . T hi s i nt erpr et at i on i s err oneous beca us e i ti s i ncons i s t entw i th the lim ita tio n s im p o s e d b yth e c ity c h a rt e r.” Id . a t 7 7 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A p p ly in g K e e lin g a n d C o lo ra d o S p rin g s F ire F ig h ter s A ss o c iatio n to th is
c a se , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e O ffice rs d id n o t h a v e a n yleg a llyc o g n iza b le expec t at i on of r ece i vi ng annual s t ep i ncr eas es forappr oxi m at el ythe fi r s tthr ee y e a rs o f th e ir e m p lo ym e n t. A s a sta rtin g p o in t, i t is c lea r th a t th e C ity ’s C o u n c il had the author i t yt o r epea l t he or di nance r equi r i ng i tt o payannual s t ep i ncr eas es and t o pas s a budget , byor di nance , thatdi d notpr ovi de foranyempl oy ee in c re a se s. A s a h o m e ru le m u n icip a lity , L o n g m o n t’s C o u n c il w a s v e ste d w ith “pl enaryl egi s l at i ve author i t yoverm at t er s excl us i vel yl ocal i n natur e. ” C ol o.13

S p ri n g s F ir e F ig h te rs A s s ’n , 7 8 4 P .2 d a t 7 7 3 n .1 8 (c itin g C o lo . C o n s t. a rt . X X ). T hi s w oul d i ncl ude det erm i ni ng the s al ar i es the C i typai d i t s empl oy ees . See i d. ( cons i der i ng benef

i t s ci t ypai d i t s r et i r ed empl oy ees t o be l ocal i n natur e) ; s ee
a lso K e e lin g , 6 8 9 P .2 d a t 6 8 0 (n o tin g th a t “th e fix in g o f sa lar ies o f

c ity empl oy ees ” i s “[a ] m ong t he l egi s l at i ve pow er s of a c i tycounci l ”)
. Fur ther , the C i t yC har t err equi r ed the C ounci l t o cons i derand adoptbyor di nance an annua l budget
. A nd s uch a budge tw oul d cont ai n a pl an t o pays al ar i es . U nderK eel i ng and i t s pr ogeny , t he C ounci l w as notbound byt he pr evi ous or di nance r equi r i ng t he C i t yt o payannual s t ep i ncr eas es , norbyt he C i ty ’ s pr i orconducti n pay i ng th o s e in c re a s e s . T h e O ffic e rs d o n o t c h a lle n g e th is
. T h e ya ss e rt in ste a d th a t th e C ity empl oy ees w ho pr om i s ed the O ffi cer s annual s t ep i ncr eas es neverthel es s bound t he C i t yt o payt hos e i ncr eas es . B utK eel i ng and r el at ed ca s es cl ear l ypr ecl ude
su c h a n a rg u m e n t. P u rsu a n t to th e C ity ’s C h a rte r, o n lyth e C o u n c il co u ld c re a te
m onet aryobl i gat i ons . T her efor e, C i tyempl oy ees coul d nototherw i s e bi nd the C i t ycontr actual l yt o an agr eementt hatt he C ounci l di d notval i dl ycr eat e. See Seel eyv. B d. of C ount yC om m ’ r s , 791 P. 2d 696, 700 ( C ol o. 1990) ( hol di ng governm entempl oy ee c annotenfor ce t erm s of contr acthi s governm ents upervi s or
w as notauthor i zed t o cr eat e) ; cf. C herryC r eek A vi at i on, I nc. v. C i tyof S tea m b o a t S p rin g s, 9 5 8 P .2 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 9 -2 0 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t, becau se “[c]ont ract s execu t ed b ym un i ci pal corpo rat i on s ar e vo i d w hen t here i s a14

fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he mandat or ypr ovi s i ons of the appl i cabl e s t atut es or ch arters, ” C ityw as n o t bo u n d b yco n tr ac t i m p rop erlyen tered into b yC ity ’s
a irp o rt a u th o ri ty). A nd, as di s cus s ed above , t he O ffi cer s ar e dee m ed t o have know l edge of t he li m it ati o n s o n the C ity ’s ab il ityto co n tr ac t. S ee C o lo. Sp ri n g s F ir e F igh ters A s s ’ n, 784 P. 2d at774; K eel i ng, 689 P. 2d at680. Forthatr eas on, theycannot
as s er tt hatt heyr eas onabl yr el i ed on anypr om i s es m ade byC i tyempl oy ees for p u rp o s e s o f

p r o m i s s o r y e s t o p p e l
. S e e K e e l i n g , 6 8 9 P
. 2 d a t6 8 1 ; s e e a l s o S e e l e y, 791 P. 2d at701 ( hol di ng governm entempl oy ee c annotr ecove ron theoryof
es t oppel bas ed on hi s s upervi s or ’ s as s er t i ons w hen s upervi s orw as notauthor i zed to ta k e th a t a c tio n o r m a k e th a t p ro m is e ). T h e O fficers se ek to av o id this resu lt , co m p ell ed b yC o lo. Sp ri n g s F ir e Fi ght er s A s s oci at i on and K eel i ng, byar gui ng t hati tw as notthe l egi s l at i ve ac t i on of the C i t yC ounci l t hatdepr i ved them of t hei rs t ep i ncr eas es , buti tw as i ns t ead t he dec i s i ons m ade byC i t yadmi ni s tr at or s , i n admi ni s t er i ng t he C ounci l ’ s 2003 budget , t hat depr i ved t he O ffi cer s of thei r s t ep i ncr eas es . Sai d anotherw ay , t he O ffi cer s ar gue that , even though the C i tyC ounci l r epea l ed the or di nance requi ri ng t he C i t yt o p ayt he O ffi cers ’ annua l st ep incr eases duri ng t heirfi rs t t hree y ears of em ploym ent, C i t yadm i nis trat ors r em ai ned free t o p ayt heseI tw oul d have t aken a n addi t i onal $75, 000 t o payal l t he s t ep i ncr eas es due 11 th e O ffice rs in 2 0 0 3 . T h e re w a s m o n e yin th e b u d g e t f ro m w h ich th e C ityc o u ld have pa i d t hi s amount . C i t yadmi ni s tr at or s had bui l ti nt o the pr opos ed budget enough moneyfr om w hi ch the C i tycoul d have pa i d everyoffi ceri n the C i tyat t he hi ghes tpayl evel , s t ep four
. T hos e pr epar i ng the 2003 budgetpr opos al i ncl uded thi s extr a moneybeca us e the C i tyhad run i nt o tr oubl e i n 2002 w hen, w hi l e adopt i ng a new compensa t i on s y s t em, t he C i ty“had s om e budget i ng fa ilu re s w h e re w e d id n o t h a v e p ro p e r a m o u n ts b u d g e ted to b e a b le to re c o v e r a ll pos i t i ons byt r y i ng t o budgetatt he ac tual s t ep” on w hi ch an e m pl oy ee w as t o be p a id . In lig h t o f

th o se p ro b lem s, “ w e d e ter m in e d th a t th e sa fe st b e t fo r 2 0 0 3 in t r y i ng t o pr oj ects al ar i es w oul d be t o us e the t op s t ep, as oppos ed t o the ac tual st ep, or the p roj ect ed st ep, so t hat w e w ou l d n ot underbu dg etanyof those pos i t i ons . ” Thi s had bee n a comm on budget i ng s tr at egyi n the 1990s
. I n M ay 2003, t he C ounci l eventual l ypas s ed an or di nance r emovi ng thi s exce s s m oney f ro m th e C ity’s G e n e ra l F u n d
. I n addi t i on t o t he fa ctt hatt her e w as extr a moneyal r eadybui l ti nt o the appr oved 2003 budget , t he pr oj ect ed r evenue s hor t fal l on w hi ch the 2003 budget w as bas ed tur ned outt o be over l ypes s i m i s t i c. I n fac t , t he C i tyt ook i n $1. 25 m il li o n m o re in rev en u es in 2 0 0 2 than ith ad an ti cipa ted. A n d the C ityh ad a $ 2 -3 m ill io n c a rry o v e r f

ro m 2 0 0 3 to 2 0 0 4 . In a d d iti o n , the C ityh a d $ 1 3 m ill io n in its G ener al Fund att he end of 2002, and s t i l l m or e att he end of 2003, w hi l e i tw as o n lyre q u ire d b yC ityp o licya n d sta te s tatu te to re tain se v e ra l m ill io n d o llars in its G e n e ra l F u n d fo r e m e rg e n c yp u rp o se s. W h ile th e O ffice rs a ss e rt th a t th e C ity co u ld h av e p aid th eir st ep incre ase s fro m thes e su rplu s fu n d s, h o w ev er, un dis pu t ed ev i den ce i n the r ecord i nd i cat es that C i typo l i cyprecl ud ed u si ng t hese o n e -t im e s u rp lu s f

u n d s to p a yo n g o in g s a la ry in c re a s e s . 15 in c re a se s f

ro m m o n e y th a t w a s in c lu d e d in th e C ity ’s b u d g e t. T h a t ar g u m e n t, 11 h o w e v e r, i s u n a v a ilin g fo r s e v e ra l r e a s o n s . A s an i ni t i al m at t er , undi s put ed evi dence i n the r ecor d cl ear l yi ndi cat es t hat t he C i t yC ounci l , i n appr ovi ng t he 2003 budget , aff i r m at i vel ydeci ded t o fr eez e C ityem p loy ee s’ w ag es a n d , as p art of that fre ez e, de cide d n o t t o p aythe O fficersU ndi s put ed evi dence i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he C i tym anage r 12 s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed the w age f r eez e i n hi s l et t erpr es ent i ng the pr opos ed budget t o t he C ounci l on A ugus t28, 2002 : [ T ]h e b u d g e t d o e s n o t in c lu d e re so u rc e s to a dju st e m p lo y e e p a y . T h is i s t he fi r s t t i m e i n s i xt een y ear s that w e have bee n i n t hi s s i tuat i on. T he o n lyw aythat reso u rce s co u ld h av e b ee n m ad e a v ail ab le fo r salary i ncr eas es i n 2003 w oul d be t o d ram ati cal l yr educe ongoi ng s ervi ce leve ls t o o ffset th e lev el of o n g o ing ex p en ses th at w o u ld g o tow ard sal ari es. T he pr opos ed w age f

r eez e, and i n part i cul art he dec i s i on nott o payanys t ep i ncr eas es , w as t he s ubj ectof s peci fi c comm ent s m ade t o the C ounci l dur i ng s ever al publ i c meet i ngs byC i t yempl oy ees , and counc i l m ember s . A nd the o rd in a n c e b yw h ich th e C o u n c il ev e n tu a llya d o p ted th e 2 0 0 3 b u d g e t sp e c ifica lly s us pended the pr evi ous C i tyor di nance t hathad r equi r ed the C i tyt o pays t ep in c re a se s a n n u a lly . T h is u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e c lea rlyin d ica tes th a t th e C o u n c il speci fi cal l ycon si dered an d affi rm at i velydecided n ot t o rai se C i tyem ploy ees’ s a la ri e s in 2 0 0 3 , a n d th a t in c lu d e d n o t p a y in g th e O ffic e rs a n ys te p in c re a s e s . F u rth e r, alth o u g h th e p ro p o se d b u d g e t th e C o u n c il ap p ro v e d a c tu a lly cont ai ned enough moneyt o payt he O ffi cer s ’ s t ep i ncr eas es , s ee i nfr a not e 11, u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t th e C o u n c il d id n o t sp e c ifica lly know t hat
. T he evi dence i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he C ounci l onl yappr oved a l um p s um forpol i ce a nd fi r e fi ght er s ’ s al ar i es , and w as notaw ar e of i ndi vi dual offi cer s ’ s al ar i es . M or eover , r egar dl es s of the exi s t ence of thataddi t i onal m oney i n t he budget , t he C ounci l cl ear l ychos e nott o payt he O ffi cer s t hos e s t ep i ncreases. U nd erl y i ng t his po l i cydecis i on w as the C ou ncil ’s beli ef t hat, becau se t he C i t ydi d nothave e nough m oneyt o gi ve al l C i tyempl oy ees a w age i ncr eas e, t he C i t ys houl d notgi ve anyempl oy ees an i ncr eas e. A nd i tw oul d have t aken $1- 1. 5 m i l l i on t o fund the i ncr eas es t hatal l C i tyempl oy ees ant i ci pat ed i n 2003. 16 any s t ep i ncr eas es for t hat y ear . I ti s al s o cl eart hatC i tyadmi ni s tr at or s di d not 12 have the author i t yt o actcontr aryt o the C ounci l ’ s budget , adopt ed byor di nance , a n d p a yth e O ffic e rs th e irs te p in c re a s e s w ith o u t C o u n c il a p p ro v a l. M or eover , even i f C i t yoffi ci al s coul d have pa i d the O ffi cer s t hei r2003 step incre ase s w ith o u t C o u n cil ap p rov al, this do es n o t est ab li sh that the O fficersI n l i ghtof thi s concl us i on, w e nee d notaddr es s t he C i ty ’ s al t ernat i ve 13 ar gum ent– t hatanypr om i s es t hatt he C i tym ade t o payt he O ffi cer s an annua l pay - s t ep i ncr eas e vi ol at es t he C ol or ado C ons t i tut i on, as amended byt he Taxpay er B ill o f R ig h ts . Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des , i n pert i nentpart , t hat 14 [e] veryper s on w ho, undercol orof anys t atut e, or di nance , r egul at i on, cus t om , orus age, of anySt at e . . . s ubj ect s , orcauses to be s ubj ect ed, anyci t i zen of

the U ni t ed St at es orot herperso n w it h i n t he j ur i s di ct i on t her eof t o t he depr i vat i on of anyr i ght s , pr i vi l eges , orim m u n i t i es s ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on and l aw s , s hal l be l i abl e t o t he partyi nj ur ed i n an ac t i on atl aw , s ui ti n equi ty , or o ther p roperpr ocee di ng for re d re s s . . . . 17 had a l egal l ycogni zabl e r i ghtt o r ece i ve thos e i ncr eas es . B as ed upon our pr evi ous di s cus s i on, t he O ffi cer s s t i l l w oul d nothave be en j us t i fi ed i n r el y i ng on t he pr evi ous r epr es ent at i ons of C i tyempl oy ees thatthe C i tyw oul d paythe O ffic e rs a n a n n u a l s te p in c re a s e fo r t h e fir s t th re e y e a rs o f th e ire m p lo ym e n t. F o r th e se re a so n s, w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyg ra n ted th e C ity
s u mma r yj u d g me n to n t h e Offi c e r s ’ c o n tr a c ta n d p r o mi s s o rye s t o p p e l c l a i ms
a s s e r t e d u n d e rCo l o r a d o l a w. 13 B . C laim s a sser ted u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 a ll eg ing th e C it y 14 d e p r iv e d th e O ffic e r s o f a p r o p e r ty r ig h t w it h o u t d u e p r o c e s s . T he O ffi cers al so al l ege thatt he C i tydep ri ved t hem of a p ropertyi nter est i n t hei rannual s t ep i ncr eas e w i t houtpr ovi di ng them due pr oces s . “[T] he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e pr ovi des t hatcert ai n s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s –l i fe, l i berty , and p ro p e rty

– c a n n o t b e d e p riv e d e x c e p t p u rsu a n t to c o n stitu tio n a llya d e q u a te p ro c e d u re s .” C le v e la n d B d . o f E d u c . v . L o u d e rm ill, 4 7 0 U .S . 5 3 2 , 5 4 1 (1 9 8 5 ).18

“A n es s ent i al pr i nci pl e of due pr oces s i s thata depr i vat i on of l i fe, l i berty , or pr oper t ybe pr ece ded bynot i ce a nd oppor tuni tyforhear i ng appr opr i at e t o the
n ature o f th e c ase . ” Id
. at 54 2 (qu o tat ion o m itted). “T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a p l a i n t i ff w a s d e n i e d p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s , w e e n g a g e i n a tw o - s t e p i n q u i ry: ( 1) D i d t he i ndi vi dual pos s es s a pr ot ect ed i nt er es tt o w hi ch due pr oces s pr ot ect i on
w as appl i cabl e? ( 2) W as t he i ndi vi dual affor ded an appr opr i at e l evel of pr oces s ?” C o p eli n -B row n v . N
. M
. S tat e P erso n n el O ffice, 39 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 4 (10 th C ir
. 2005) ( quot at i on om i t t ed)
. W e conc l ude thatthe O ffi cer s have fai l ed t o m ake a
s h o w in g o f

a p ro te c ta b le in te re s t c o g n iz a b le u n d e r t h e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m s um m aryj udgm entforthe C i tyon thi s cl ai m , w i thout
n e e d in g to a d d re s s th e s e c o n d is s u e o f th e le v e l o f

p ro c e s s p ro v id e d b yth e C ity. T he pr ocedur al componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e does not pr ot ecteveryt hi ng t hatm i ghtbe des cr i bed as a “be nefi t ”: T o have a pr opert yi nt er es ti n a bene fi t , a per s on cl ear l ym us thave mor e than an abs t r actneed ordes i r e and mor e than a uni l at er al expec t at i on of it. H e m u s t, in s te a d , h a v e a le g itim a te c la im o f e n title m e n t to it. S u c h e n title m e n ts a re o f c o u rs e [ ] n o t c re a te d b yth e C o n s titu tio n . R ather , t heyar e cr eat ed and thei rdi m ens i ons ar e def i ned byexi s t i ng rul es orunder s t andi ngs t hats t em from an i ndepende nts our ce s uch as s ta te la w . T ow n of C as t l e R ock v. G onzal es , 545 U
. S. 748, 125 S. C t . 2796, 2803 ( 2005) ( ci t at i ons , quot at i ons , al t er at i on om i t t ed)
. “[A ] benef i ti s nota pr ot ect ed
e n title m e n t if

g o v e rn m e n t o ffic ia ls m a yg ra n t o r d e n yit in th e ird is c re tio n .” Id
. T he d et erm i nati on of w hetheran indi vidual has a protect ed p ropertyi nter est unders t at e l aw i s ul t i m at el ya mat t erof fe der al cons t i tut i onal l aw . See i d.19

“St at e l aw s our ces forpr opertyi nt er es t s can i ncl ude s t atut es , m uni ci pal chart er s oror di nance s , and expr es s ori m pl i ed contr act s . ” K i ns gfor d v. Sal tL ake C i t yS ch. D i st . , 24 7 F
. 3d 11 23 , 11 28 (10t h C i r. 20 01 ); see al so H ulen v. Y at es, 3 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 4 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (p e r c u ria m ). In th is c a se , the p ro p e rty i nt er es tt he O ffi cer s as s ertt heyhad i n r ece i vi ng t hei r2003 s t ep i ncr eas es i s the
sa m e p u rp o rte d c o n tra c tu a l rig h t to a n a n n u a l ste p in c re a se th a t u n d e rlies th e ir
s t at e- l aw cl ai m s for br eac h of contr act and pr om i s s or y es t oppel
. T hatcl ai m of a pr oper t yr i ghtpr ot ect ed bydue pr oces s fai l s fort he s ame r eas ons t hatt he O ffi cer s ’ cl ai m s al l egi ng br eac h of contr actand pr om i s s or yes t oppel fai l
. T he d istric t co u rt, th e re fo re , d id n o t er r in g ra n tin g th e C itysu m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. I V. CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on g ra n tin g th e C ity su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a ll c la im s .