Colorado Airport Parking, LLC v. Department of Aviation of the City of Denver
2014 COA 17
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (three off-site airport parking operators) operate shuttle services to Denver International Airport (DIA) and previously paid per-trip "access" fees (plus dwell fees) for use of Level 5 roadway.
- DIA adopted Rule 100.22, replacing access fees for off-site parking operators with an 8% "privilege fee" on gross revenues (dwell fees remained); two plaintiffs saw large fee increases, one saw a decrease.
- Plaintiffs administratively challenged Rule 100.22 (arguing improper allocation of airport expenses under Denver Rev. Mun. Code §5-16(e), defective rulemaking procedure, and that the rule was an improper tax); the hearing officer denied relief and the district court affirmed on the record without a hearing.
- Plaintiffs appealed under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) (judicial review for abuse of discretion/exceeding jurisdiction) and separately raised a C.R.C.P. 57 declaratory-judgment claim (dismissed below).
- The appellate court agreed that reasonable apportionment is required under §5-16(e) but found the record insufficient to explain why DIA selected an 8% revenue fee; remanded for further proceedings to determine whether 8% is a reasonable apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DIA reasonably apportioned GTCC expenses under §5-16(e) | Rule 100.22 unreasonably allocates costs (includes costs for Levels 4 & 6 and discriminates against off-site parking operators), lacking analysis of plaintiffs' actual use and disproportionately increasing their fees | The rule rationally classifies off-site parking operators and uses a revenue-based fee (consistent with other DIA users and common practice) to address GTCC deficit and reduce administrative costs | Remanded: apportionment concept requires a rational basis; record lacks explanation why 8% was chosen, so hearing officer must determine whether 8% yields a reasonable apportionment (further evidence permitted) |
| Whether costs for Levels 4 and 6 were improperly included in GTCC | Plaintiffs contend GTCC improperly includes Levels 4 & 6 costs, inflating amounts apportioned to Level 5 users | DIA testified allocation excludes Levels 4 & 6 costs from GTCC (they are allocated elsewhere) | Affirmed: factual finding that Levels 4 & 6 costs are not charged to GTCC is supported by the record; plaintiffs did not present other misallocation evidence |
| Whether treating off-site parking operators differently is arbitrary | Classification is discriminatory because only off-site operators pay revenue fee | Different users have different revenue dependencies; off-site operators derive nearly all revenues from airport use, so revenue basis is rational and administratively efficient | Held rational: disparate treatment is permissible if based on rational classification; revenue-based fees are common and reasonable for users whose revenues depend on airport use |
| Whether district court erred dismissing C.R.C.P. 57 claim without a hearing | Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57 and argue dismissal was improper | District court dismissed on the record | Moot: appellate court found remand on apportionment dispositive, rendering the C.R.C.P. 57 issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 833 P.2d 852 (Colo. App. 1992) (discusses "reasonable apportionment" under §5-16 and limits on relying solely on practices at other airports)
- Kruse v. Town of Castle Rock, 192 P.3d 591 (Colo. App. 2008) (burden on challenger and presumption of validity in C.R.C.P. 106 review)
- Alpenhof, LLC v. City of Ouray, 297 P.3d 1052 (Colo. App. 2013) (standard of review for administrative/quasi-judicial decisions under C.R.C.P. 106)
- Allright Colo., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 937 F.2d 1502 (10th Cir. 1991) (rational-basis support for treating off-site shuttle services differently in apportioning airport costs)
- Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth., 825 F.2d 367 (11th Cir. 1987) (upholding different access fees for distinct categories of airport-related vehicles)