Court Opinion

ID: 9543554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:46:31.242172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:35.149965
License: Public Domain

Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
The majority concludes that sections 8-3-112(2) and 8-3-113(3), 3B C.R.S. (1986), are constitutional under Colorado Constitution article V, section 35, and do not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority because the Regional Transportation District (RTD) is not a municipality. Maj. op. at 949. I disagree. In City of Durango v. Durango Transportation, Inc., 807 P.2d 1152 (Colo.1991), this court adopted the “function approach” to determine whether a governmental entity is a municipality under article V, section 35. Under the function approach, RTD is clearly within the meaning of “municipal” in article V, section 35, and thus, the provisions of sections 8-3-112(2) and 8-3-113(3) granting the Director of Labor authority to order RTD to submit to binding arbitration constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority under article V, section 35.
I.
RTD and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. This agreement expired on February 28, 1991. On December 4, 1990, pursuant to section 8-3-113(3), ATU filed a notice of intent to strike if the agreement was not renegotiated by the expiration date.
Section 8-3-113(3) provides that the Director of the Division of Labor (the Director) must enter an order allowing or denying the strike within twenty days of the filing of the notice. The Director will deny the strike if such “strike would interfere with the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.” § 8-3-113(3). Any order denying the strike must include an order to arbitrate. Pursuant to section 8-3-112(2), the arbitration results are binding upon the parties.
On August 20, 1991, the Director denied the strike request, concluding that a strike would interfere with the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and ordered the parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. On August 26, 1991, RTD filed a complaint and petition for judicial review, contending that the provisions of sections 8-3-112(2) and 8-3-113(3) requiring binding arbitration constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. On October 28, 1991, the district court concluded that the arbitration order was unconstitutional and granted summary judgment in favor of RTD.
II.
RTD was created to “promote the public health, safety, convenience, economy, and *950welfare of the residents of the district and the state of Colorado.” § 32-9-102(l)(a), 13 C.R.S. (1973). RTD “is authorized to develop, maintain, and operate a mass transportation system for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district.” § 32-9-107,13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.).
RTD has been given “the duties, privileges, immunities, rights, liabilities, and disabilities of a public body politic and corporate.” § 32-9-119(l)(a), 13 C.R.S. (1973). RTD is a political subdivision of the state. § 32-9-119(l)(a). It possesses “all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific powers granted in [the Regional Transportation District Act], which specific powers shall not be considered as a limitation upon any power necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and intent of th[e Act].” § 32-9-119(l)(x), 13 C.R.S. (1973). RTD may sue and be sued and has been given the power of eminent domain. §§ 32-9-160, -161, 13 C.R.S. (1973). See also § 32-9-119, 13 C.R.S. (1973 & 1991 Supp.) (listing additional RTD powers).
RTD is governed by a board of directors. The board consists of fifteen members, each of whom represents a director district. A director district is the “area within the district which is represented by one director.” § 32-9-103(3.5), 13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). The director districts are reapportioned after each census on the basis of population and are “comprised of general election precincts established by the boards of county commissioners of those counties, all or part of which are within the district, and by the election commission of the City and County of Denver.” § 32-9-111(2), 13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). “No general election precinct may be split into one or more director districts.” Id.
Board members are elected by registered electors residing in the board member’s director district. § 32-9-111(3), 13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). Board members are elected to four-year terms in district elections “held concurrently with the state general election in every even-numbered year.” § 32-9-111(3), (4), 13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). Any board member “may be recalled from office by the electors of the director district such member represents.” § 32-9-112(2), 13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). Each member receives three thousand dollars per year and is reimbursed for expenses. § 32-9-117, 13 C.R.S. (1991 Supp.).
III.
Our decision in City of Durango v. Du-rango Transportation, Inc., 807 P.2d 1152 (Colo.1991), is dispositive of the question of whether RTD is within the meaning of “municipal” in article V, section 35. The City of Durango and the County of LaPlata entered into an agreement to provide a mass transit system in the County. The agreement provided for the operation and maintenance of the transit system by the city. The city would establish fares with advice from the Transit Advisory Board, which was made up of both city and county appointees.
Durango Transportation, Inc., a private corporation, had a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) certificate to provide a mass transit system in the county, including the routes covered by the agreement between the city and county. Durango Transportation, Inc., filed suit against the city and county to prevent the city and county’s operation of the county mass transit system without authorization by the PUC.
In Durango, we reviewed whether Colorado Constitution article V, section 35, prohibited the PUC’s regulation of the county transit system. Article V, section 35, provides:
Delegation of Power. The general assembly shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association, any power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property or effects, whether held in trust or otherwise, or to levy taxes or perform any municipal function whatever!1!
(Emphasis added.)
In determining whether article V, section 35, applied to the county, we had to deter*951mine whether the county was within the meaning of “municipal” in article V, section 35. After recognizing that the Colorado Constitution does not define “municipal,” this court exhaustively reviewed the definition and interpretation of “municipal” in other jurisdictions. We concluded that
in modern usage the scope of the term “municipal” is to be determined by reference to the particular function to be performed rather than by strict adherence to the classification of the governmental entity performing that function as a city, county, or other unit of government.
Durango, 807 P.2d at 1156 (emphasis added). We further stated that the
functional approach to defining “municipal” is particularly compelling in light of our interpretation of article V, section 35. We observed in Holyoke [v. Smith, 75 Colo. 286, 226 P. 158 (1924),] that article V, section 35, protects the historical right to local self-government. We noted that “[t]he subjects to which this protection extends [e.g., improvements and property] ... are such as properly fall within the domain of local self-government.”
Id. at 1157 (citation omitted).
Thus, we recognized that customers must have recourse through the political process, in order to find that a governmental entity in providing a local service is within the meaning of “municipal” in article V, section 35. Id. at 1157-58. We concluded that county residents have the power to effect change in the governing board responsible for the service provided by the county-owned mass transit system. Specifically, this court found that
[u]nder Colorado law, “[t]he powers of a county as a body politic and corporate shall be exercised by a board of county commissioners therefor.” § 30-11-103, 12A C.R.S. (1986). Commissioners are elected from districts “by voters of the whole county.” § 30-10-306(1), 12A C.R.S. (1986). In addition, “[e]very elective county officer of the state of Colorado may be recalled from office at any time by the registered electors of the county.” § 30-10-201, 12A C.R.S. (1986).
Id. at 1157.
We held that the “term ‘municipal’ in article V, section 35, applies to counties when engaged in providing mass transit within county boundaries.” Id. at 1158. We explained our holding, however, by stating:
A county acting to provide local services commonly considered to be “municipal functions” is acting in a capacity distinct from its function as an administrative arm of state government. It is for the purpose of providing local services alone that we hold that a county falls within the meaning of “municipal” in article V, section 35.
Id. at 1158 n. 6 (emphasis added). This explanation clearly establishes that the focus is on the function being performed— providing a mass transit system — and not on whether the governmental entity is a city, town or county.
IV.
A.
The majority recognizes that the functional approach in Durango applies to this case. However, the majority abandons the approach we adopted in Durango by stating that RTD is not a “multiple purpose governmental entity ... providing general local government services.” Maj. op. at 946. The purpose of the functional approach is not to determine the number of functions RTD provides but whether the function RTD provides is a local service commonly considered a municipal function. Mass transit is a local service which constitutes a municipal function. Durango, 807 P.2d at 1158, 1158 n. 6.
Moreover, in Durango we recognized two different and distinct approaches to construing “municipality.” Durango, 807 *952P.2d at 1156. The term “municipality” can be construed in the historical, narrow sense “to mean only cities, towns and villages,” or it can be construed in the modern, broader sense “to mean any political subdivision of the state with a public purpose and a governmental function.” Durango, 807 P.2d at 1156. We adopted the modern approach in Durango, which the majority tacitly rejects. Instead, the majority now adopts a test which combines these two approaches and represents a retreat from the modern approach this court unanimously adopted in Durango. This new approach narrows the scope of what can be considered a municipality only to those entities which are “multiple purpose governmental entities.”
The majority also states that there is a “distinction between municipal functions, implicating the right to local self-government over local services, and functions affecting matters of concern to citizens beyond the boundaries of the government engaged in the functions.” Maj. op. at 947. Apparently, the majority places “municipalities” in the first group and RTD in the second group. The statute, by its plain terms, indicates that RTD is more appropriately described as “implicating the right to local self-government over local services.” The statute gives the citizens of the district, like the citizens of a county or city, the right to self-government over the mass transportation system provided by RTD. Like the county in Durango, RTD is a body politic and corporate whose powers are exercised by its board of directors. The people of the district have the power to elect and the power to recall board members. RTD’s board of directors is responsible only to the voters in the district. Clearly, RTD is a local unit of self-government that gives the people in the district the power to govern themselves locally concerning mass transit.2
Application of the functional approach and the interpretation of article V, section 35, adopted in Durango to the present case leads to the conclusion that RTD is within the meaning of “municipal” in article V, section 35. RTD provides a local service commonly considered a municipal function. RTD is a body politic and corporate which has the powers of a municipal corporation. See Eugene McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 2.07a (3d ed. 1987) (a municipal corporation is a body politic and corporate, possessing various enumerated powers). The people in the district have recourse through the political process to effect a change if they are not satisfied with the RTD board’s actions.
B.
In order to distinguish the present ease from Durango, the majority states that the “RTD mass transit system involves economic and social issues of concern to the entire state as well as to the citizens within the boundaries of the area served by RTD.” The majority does not indicate what economic or social issues “transcend” the RTD boundaries. Instead, they contend that this fact is evidenced by the “special legislation” by which RTD came into being.
The RTD legislation was enacted to benefit the Denver metropolitan area. The legislation’s enactment made available to RTD benefits under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (the UMTA), 49 U.S.C.app. §§ 1601 to 1621 (1988). This Act recognized “that the predominant part of the Nation’s population is located in its rapidly expanding metropolitan and other urban areas,” and one of the Act’s purposes was “to encourage the planning and establishing of areawide urban mass transportation systems needed for economical and desirable urban development.” 49 U.S.C. § 1601(a)(1), (b)(2) (emphasis added). The principal encouragement for developing ar-eawide urban mass transportation was monetary. Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more were to be allocated 88.43 percent of available federal funds. *953Of that amount, the majority of funds were available to urbanized areas of 1,000,000 or more.
Thus, even the RTD legislation’s enactment was intended to benefit only the Denver metropolitan area. As stated above, the UMTA was enacted to promote area-wide urban mass transportation. By forming the RTD, the General Assembly fulfilled the purpose of the UMTA and put the Denver metropolitan area in a position to collect a larger share of federal funds for its “areawide” transportation system.
The majority also contends that the “fact that the functioning of RTD is a matter of statewide concern is also evidenced by the source of the arbitration requirement contained in sections 8-3-112(2) and 8-3-113(3).” Maj. op. at 947. The majority states that as a condition for assistance under the UMTA, “states were required to preserve the collective bargaining rights enjoyed by organized mass transit workers under private ownership.” Maj. op. at 947. The majority concludes: “Therefore, when the General Assembly created RTD, it amended the Labor Peace Act to provide RTD employees with the benefits of mandatory collective bargaining and dispute resolution mechanisms.” Maj. op. at 947.
The majority’s reasoning is not supported by either the provisions of the UMTA or the Labor Peace Act. First, the Labor Peace Act was amended four years before the RTD was created. Thus, the General Assembly did not amend the Labor Peace Act when it created RTD.
Second, the UMTA required as a “condition of any assistance under section 1602 of this title that fair and equitable arrangements are made” to ensure the “continuation of collective bargaining rights.” 49 U.S.C.app. § 1609(c). Colorado’s Labor Peace Act exempts the “state and any political subdivisions thereof” from its provisions. § 8-3-104(12), 3B C.R.S. (1986). Because many political subdivisions would be operating mass transit systems, the General Assembly created an exception to the Labor Peace Act, section 8-3-104(12), which would satisfy the “fair and equitable arrangements” requirement of the UMTA and allow the various political subdivisions to qualify for assistance under the UMTA. The Labor Peace Act was not amended to specifically benefit RTD employees. It was amended to benefit all political subdivisions of the state that provided mass transit.
V.
I dissent from part II.A. of the majority's opinion and would affirm the district court’s decision finding that the binding arbitration is an unconstitutional delegation of authority under article V, section 35.3 Because I would find that the binding arbitration is an unconstitutional delegation of authority under article V, section 35, I would not address the constitutionality of sections 8-3-112(2) and 8-3-113(3) under Colorado Constitution article XXI, section 4.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice ROVIRA joins in this dissent.

. The arbitrator is a "special commission, private corporation or association” within the *951meaning of article V, section 35. See Greeley Police Union v. City Council, 191 Colo. 419, 553 P.2d 790 (1976); Munson v. City of Colorado Springs, 35 Colo. 506, 510, 84 P. 683 (1906) (concluding that article V, section 35, applies to “a private person or corporation or a purely voluntary private association”).

. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how RTD’s providing a local bus service to the Denver metropolitan area affects the citizens of the state outside the district's boundaries any more than the local police in Grand Junction or some other city, which is a municipal function, affects the citizens of the state.

. A conclusion that §§ 8-3-112 and 8-3-113 constitute an unconstitutional delegation of power does not violate 49 U.S.C.app. § 1609(c) (1988) of the Urban Mass Transit Act. Section 1609(c) provides that, as a condition of assistance from the federal government, "fair and equitable arrangements" must be made to protect the interests of employees. This section mandates collective bargaining but does not require binding arbitration. Amalgamated Transit Union Int'l v. Donovan, 767 F.2d 939, 955 (D.C.Cir.1985). In this case, good-faith bargaining between RTD and ATU is assured because § 8-3-113(1) requires mediation and because the employees still retain the right to strike. RTD recognizes ATU’s right to strike in its brief where it states that “a strike by the Union would not interfere with the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and that the Union should be permitted to go on strike if the parties are unable to resolve issues through the collective bargaining process.”