Court Opinion

ID: 9543320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:44:17.640942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:08.633943
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Sutton
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion written by Mr. Justice Moore. I am cognizant of the legislative purpose of this statute as a major effort to solve pressing problems of *298Denver which are of metropolitan scope. Obviously those facing a metropolitan area such as Denver and its surrounding counties require joint planning, joint effort and mutual consideration and respect to arrive at proper solutions.
It is our duty, however, to declare statutes which conflict with the constitution invalid when properly challenged. When this occurs and the problems which led to the passage of the questioned legislation still exist those affected must seek other lawful methods of solution. One of these might be a proper constitutional amendment to authorize this new type of municipal corporation.
In addition to the reasons given in the majority opinion for invalidity of this statute I believe that it also violates Section 35, Article V, of the Colorado Constitution which reads:
“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.”
The statute here in question purports to create a “special commission” authorized to “supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement” with relation to matters which are “local and municipal” in nature and in addition levies a tax therefor, all in violation of the express prohibition contained in the constitutional provision above quoted.
There is a vast difference between the type of all enveloping district attempted to be set up here to perform local duties already delegated elsewhere by our constitution, and the accepted concept of improvement districts, water districts, sanitation districts and the' like which we have long recognized as proper. See for example: People ex rel v. Letford, 102 Colo. 284, 79 P. (2d) 274 (1938); Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel District, 72 Colo. *299268, 211 Pac. 649 (1922); and Aurora v. Aurora Sanitation District, 112 Colo. 406, 149 P. (2d) 662 (1944).