Vagneur v. City of Aspen, 2013 CO 13

Two citizen-initiated petitions in Aspen sought to alter design and construction of the State Highway 82 entrance and open-space parcels; hearing officer found the proposals intruded on administrative decisions and were not proper for initiative; district and appellate courts affirmed; Supreme Court held petitions administrative and outside initiative power; multi-agency federal/state process (NEPA, FHWA, CDOT) governed the current design; 1996 voter authorization changed open-space use, not generally legislative; 1998 Record of Decision approved a two-lane parkway with light-rail corridor, with bus-lane interim option pending funding; later voter approvals authorized specific open-space uses but did not authorize final segment across Marolt-Thomas property; petitions would override or rescind existing contracts and open-space easements, and require CDOT to build a different design; Aspen Charter provisions shape initiative scope and require voter input for open-space changes but do not convert administrative actions into legislative acts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petitions are administrative or legislative in character	Proponents contend they are legislative, proposing a policy change for land use.	Respondents contend they are administrative, precluding initiative on a specialized, multi-agency process.	Administrative; outside initiative power.
Whether the 1996 voter authorization was legislative	Initiatives seek to undo the 1996 vote, implying legislative character.	1996 change in open-space use was not a general legislative act; it was authorization tied to administrative process.	Not legislative; initiatives remain administrative.
Whether the initiatives would amend contractual rights or open-space conveyances	Initiatives merely propose a different highway design, not contract alteration.	Change would entail amending MOUs and easements, affecting contracts.	Administrative; would modify contractual obligations, not legislative rules.

City of Aurora v. Zwerdlinger, 194 Colo. 192, 571 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1977) (tests whether action is legislative or administrative; permanence vs. policy)
Witcher v. Canon City, 716 P.2d 445 (Colo. 1986) (administrative acts carried out to implement policy; leasing decisions treated administratively)
City of Idaho Springs v. Blackwell, 731 P.2d 1250 (Colo. 1987) (permanence denotes general applicability; changes to open-space use not general zoning)
Margolis v. Dist. Court, 638 P.2d 297 (Colo. 1981) (original legislative act and its amendment treated as legislative; zoning decisions subject to initiative)
Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. City of Seattle, 620 P.2d 82 (Wash. 1980) (administrative consequences do not render a measure legislative)
Carter v. Lehi City, 269 P.3d 141 (Utah 2012) (essential hallmarks of legislative power: general applicability, general rules)
Blackwell (City of Idaho Springs), 731 P.2d 1250 (Colo. 1987) (legislative vs. administrative tests; impact of public policy proclamations)