Opinion ID: 2585476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: We first address plaintiffs' claim that Referred Issue 2A is invalid because it includes four separate purposes, thereby requiring voters to vote for all of them collectively, against all of them collectively, or none at all. Because we construe this claim to be a challenge to the content of the ballot itself on the basis of multiple subjects, the statute of limitations forecloses suit. [5] Pursuant to section 1-11-201(3), a party may contest the results of a ballot question on several grounds. Among the causes listed in that section are the inclusion of illegal votes in election results, errors by election judges, and an election official's misconduct which changed the result of the election. [6] In addition to the causes listed in section 1-11-201(3) to challenge election results, section 1-11-203.5 provides parties with a way to contest a ballot title itself. Included in this section is a statute of limitations provision which requires that the contestor file a complaint within five days after the title of the ballot issue or ballot question is set by the political subdivision. § 1-11-203.5(2), 1 C.R.S. (2002). The procedure provided in this section is the exclusive means to contest or otherwise challenge the order of the ballot or the form or content of the ballot title. § 1-11-203.5(5). [7] Plaintiffs concede that the time to challenge Referred Issue 2A had long since passed by the time they filed their complaint. However, plaintiffs argue that none of the grounds upon which a party may contest an election result on a ballot issue included in section 1-11-201(3) is applicable here. Because their challenge is not a ballot title contest, they contend that the statute of limitations in section 1-11-203.5(2) does not apply to bar the claim. Plaintiffs additionally argue that our holding in City of Denver v. Hayes, 28 Colo. 110, 63 P. 311 (1900), renders the failure to challenge the content of the ballot title within the five day statute of limitations period irrelevant and immaterial. Reviewing the statutory language of sections 1-11-201(3) and 1-11-203.5, we disagree with plaintiffs' argument for two reasons. First, section 1-11-201(3) states that a ballot question may be contested on the enumerated grounds provided. Use of the word may suggests that the list of permissible purposes to contest the result of a ballot issue is not exhaustive. See, e.g., People v. Miller, 890 P.2d 84, 98 n. 15 (Colo.1995). Second, section 1-11-203.5 specifically provides parties with a way to challenge the form or content of a ballot title and provides exclusive proceduresincluding a five day statute of limitations periodwhich govern such challenges. Nor do we find persuasive plaintiffs' argument that Hayes is controlling. In Hayes, we held that bonds issued for several purposes are invalid unless each purpose and the amount proposed are separately submitted for voter approval or rejection. 28 Colo. at 115, 63 P. at 313. However, the timeliness of filing a ballot title challenge was not at issue in Hayes, which we decided nearly a century before the general assembly enacted section 1-11-203.5. See Contests concerning ballot order or ballot titleballot issue or ballot question elections, ch. 200, § 64, 1994 Sess. Laws 1176. Thus, under our current statutory scheme, the statute of limitations is a threshold requirement any party contesting a ballot title must observe. See Molleck v. City of Golden, 884 P.2d 725, 727 (Colo. 1994). [8] Plaintiffs' argument that the ballot issue was invalid because it contained multiple purposes is clearly a challenge to the form or content of the ballot title. Because section 1-11-203.5(2) requires that all challenges to the form or content of a ballot title must be filed within five days after the title of the ballot issue is set, and because plaintiffs filed their claim long after the statute of limitations period expired, we hold that plaintiffs' claim challenging the content of the ballot title is time-barred.
Plaintiffs additionally contend that the City's expenditures of bond proceeds were contrary to the voter-approved purpose and were not within the City's discretion. According to plaintiffs, the City not only failed to spend bond proceeds on enumerated purposes in Referred Issue 2A, but also spent proceeds on non-enumerated purposes when it (1) purchased land for the development of the golf course; (2) used bond funds for numerous purposes not included in Referred Issue 2A; and (3) failed to construct a satellite community center despite the fact that Referred Issue 2A provided for the construction of that facility. The trial court concluded that because these claims were political questions, it lacked jurisdiction to address them and granted the City's motion to dismiss. We disagree. While courts must refrain from reviewing controversies concerning policy choices and value determinations that are constitutionally committed for resolution to the legislative or executive branch, [9] the trial court need not invade the City Council's province to resolve the issues in this case. Instead, plaintiffs' arguments require a determination of whether the City's choices to expend bond proceeds were properly within its discretion, which does not require formulating of legislative policy or developing standards not legal in nature. In addition, we have previously resolved questions concerning a City's discretion to spend bond proceeds without running afoul of the political questions doctrine. See, e.g., McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 120 Colo. 380, 209 P.2d 910 (1949); City & County of Denver v. Currigan, 147 Colo. 125, 362 P.2d 1060 (1961); Abts v. Bd. of Educ., 622 P.2d 518 (Colo.1980). For all of these reasons, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' claims and the City's motion to dismiss. Because the parties submitted materials outside of the pleadings, including affidavits and contracts, the trial court may review these documents and if it determines that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists, convert the City's motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. Alexander v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 166 Colo. 118, 123, 444 P.2d 397, 399-400 (1968); Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 260 (10th Cir.1987)(notice requirement satisfied when both parties submit materials beyond pleadings in support of or opposing a motion to dismiss). [10] Thus, we remand this case to the trial court to resolve plaintiffs' claims originally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine, either on summary judgment or at trial. To guide the trial court's review of plaintiffs' claims and because both parties briefed and argued this issue to us, we review the law governing a municipality's discretion concerning the expenditures of bond proceeds.
We have always taken an expansive view of a municipality's discretion to expend bond proceeds. Considering our precedent on this subject, and because modern times require a degree of discretion for municipalities financing and supervising complex projects, we hold that expenditures that do not materially depart from the purpose of a bond measure and necessary expenditures incidental to an authorized purpose are properly within a municipality's discretion, and therefore permissible. [11] That discretion is limited in part by Article XI, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution, which provides that no such debt shall be created unless the question of incurring the same be submitted to and approved by a majority of the qualified taxpaying electors voting thereon, with certain exceptions not applicable here. [12] In Hayes, we construed a similar constitutional provision concerning the creation of municipal debt to preclude the submission of separate and distinct purposes on a single ballot proposition, on the theory that the voter is deprived of the right to vote for one purpose and against others. 28 Colo. at 114-15, 63 P. at 313 (addressing Colorado Constitution Art. XI, § 8 (repealed 1970)); Abts, 622 P.2d at 523. [13] In addition to constitutional and charter restrictions, a city must observe several requirements to issue bonds and expend proceeds: (1) the question submitted to voters must be specific and apprise them of the particular purpose for which the bonds are proposed to be issued; (2) the purpose must not be misleading; (3) the proceeds of the bonds must be spent for the purpose for which they were voted; and (4) if the city expends bond proceeds for the approved purpose, the judgment and discretion concerning those expenditures are reserved for city officials, not the courts. McNichols, 120 Colo. at 385, 209 P.2d at 912-13; Friends of Chamber Music v. City and County of Denver, 696 P.2d 309, 319 (Colo.1985). We have applied these requirements and on several occasions, held that a city's decision to expend bond proceeds for a use that materially departs from either an approved purpose or the terms of an authorizing ordinance exceeds its discretion. For example, in McNichols, the City of Denver issued voter-approved bonds to improve and equip a hospital but instead, used the funds to build a facility for Bureau of Public Welfare employees. 120 Colo. at 382, 209 P.2d at 911. Because the approved purpose to construct hospital facilities was entirely different from the modified use to house administrative staff, such a modification did not fall within the range of reasonable discretion and was improper. Id. at 391, 209 P.2d at 915. Additionally, in Currigan we reviewed a bond proceed expenditure for fifteen specific public improvements. If the city completed all fifteen improvements and did not exhaust the bond proceeds, it could apply the balance of the funds to a group of five additional enumerated public improvements. 147 Colo. at 127, 362 P.2d at 1062. The city completed the first fourteen of the fifteen projects, but determined that the fifteenth was not only undesirable, but also would have created a public hazard and amounted to a waste of public funds. As a result, the city abandoned the fifteenth project and substituted it for one of the five additional public improvements. However, the projects were not interchangeable, and the completion of the primary projects was a condition precedent to the secondary projects. Accordingly, project substitution was a material departure from the terms of its own authorizing ordinance submitted to voters and therefore not within the city's discretion. Id. at 132-33, 362 P.2d at 1064-65. [14] See also Friends of Chamber Music, 696 P.2d at 320 (use of admissions tax proceeds to retire bonds was not an illegal change in the bond ordinance even though voters approved ad valorem property taxes to retire the bonds). Although a city may not materially depart from an approved purpose, we have never so narrowly limited municipalities to prohibit expenditures for uses that are necessary and incidental to that purpose. We find Johnson v. McDonald, 97 Colo. 324, 49 P.2d 1017 (1935) persuasive support for this principle. In that case, the state issued interest-bearing warrants for funds advanced by the federal government to be used for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of highways. We held that the payment of bank and trust company charges was not a diversion of the funds from other than road purposes, and therefore, the state's payment of charges was allowable. Id. at 346, 49 P.2d at 1028. If we were to hold otherwise, municipalities would be required to itemize all conceivable expenses in ballot titles. Some of these expenses are foreseeable, while others inevitably are not. Precluding a city from making expenditures properly within its discretion would hamper a city's ability to fulfill its obligations to its residents, implement plans, and adapt to constantly changing circumstances. As we are reminded by the United States Supreme Court, We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints. Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 501, 51 S.Ct. 228, 75 L.Ed. 482 (1931). Whether modifications materially depart from the purpose of a bond measure and whether necessary expenditures are incidental to an approved purpose are to be resolved by the trial court. [15] Hence, considering our review of applicable law, the task for the trial court on remand is to determine whether the City's expenditures challenged by plaintiffs were properly within the City's discretion.