*1 against the judgment entered of conviction
respondent.4 City AURORA, Colorado; OF
CITY
Thornton, Colorado; City of Westmin Colorado; City Brighton,
ster, Colo Broomfield, Colorado;
rado; City Colorado; Heights, Peti of Federal
tioners,
The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ADAMS,
ERS OF the COUNTY OF Col
orado; following officers and the Hill, capacities:
in their official Helen
Treasurer; Terry Funderburk, Finance
Director; Wilson, Budget David Of
ficer; Respondents.
No. 95SC10. Colorado,
Supreme Court
En Banc.
June 1996. July
Rehearing Denied incident, judgment prosecution presents if the 4. Because we affirm the of the trial after court, whether, we need not reach the issue of was consis- evidence that the victim’s behavior remand, the defense would be entitled intro- tent with one who had been the victim of a expert testimony identity duce on homosexual sexual assault. explain conflict to the victim's tearful conduct *2 ly County), referred to as Adams have tradi- tionally spe- allocated some revenue from the cific tax to fund road and throughout County. construction Be- ginning County has allocated specific ownership a of its tax reve- Tanoue, P.C., & Susan K. Grif- Griffiths County Bridge nue to the Adams Road and Denver, Aurora, fiths, City of Charles H. (Road Fund). Bridge Fund Richardson, Bannon, Hy- A. Michael J. Julia The Cities initiated this action in the dis- man, Aurora, for Petitioners. seeking County’s trict court review of Adams Loew, County Attorney, Robert J. action. The Cities contend that Adams Carl, County Ronald A. Assistant Adams At- County effectively has eliminated their reve- torney, Brighton, Respondents. nue from the road and tax and the Wilson, Denver, Geoffrey T. for Amicus provision by using majority sharebaek a of Municipal League. Curiae Colorado specific ownership tax Barker, County Attorney, Bridge Bruce T. Weld to fund the Road and Fund. Adams Greeley, County procedure for Amicus Curiae Colorado Coun- asserts that the is within ties, budgeting powers Inc. and that it has been
allocating
incep-
this format
under
since the
Justice MULLARKEY delivered the
specific ownership
tion of the
tax in 1970.
Opinion of the Court.
granted partial summary
The district court
granted
We
certiorari to review the court
Cities,
judgment
finding
in favor of the
appeals’
City
of
decision
Aurora
of
(1)
injunction
preliminary
a
was unwarrant-
County
Board
I. appeals. Aurora, Colorado; City petitioners, Thornton, Colorado; City City of West- II. minster, Colorado; City Brighton, Colora- do; Broomfield, Colorado; interrelationship This case involves the City (1) tax, taxes: a Heights, two (collectively of Federal Colorado re- Cities), personal property imposed on mo- municipalities ferred to as are vehicles; partially totally County, tor tax, ad valorem tax. respondents, Colorado. The the Board of put perspective, of To this ease in we will de- Commissioners (eollective- Adams, Colorado, and its officials scribe each tax. granted ruling county following appeals
1. We certiorari on the issue: Did the court of may err in allocate its tax revenue to its road and fund? (emphasis ownership tax is authorized added). X, 6 of the Colorado Constitu-
article by a implemented and is object County’s prac- The Cities to Adams presently codified at sections 42-3- scheme contending allocation of tice (1995 -144,17 Supp.).2 Specific 101 to *3 ownership tax revenue to the Road and by ownership part taxes are collected 43-2-202(1), Bridge Fund violates section county part and in clerk and recorder (1993), establishing the the statute respect to interstate vehicles. The state with allege fund. The Cities that the increased portion of its collections to state remits specific ownership taxes to the allocation of county percentage on the of state each based Bridge Fund the road and reduced 42-3-107(6), county. § located in the roads bridge correspondingly tax and decreased (1995 Each in turn Supp.). 17 C.R.S. to the Cit- the shareback revenues allocated required apportion its share between is to ies under the statute. political subdivisions located itself and the 42-3-107(23), county. § within the 17 C.R.S. III. (1995 Supp.).3 bridge The road and tax is an ad valorem interpreting In and the Road property tax which the is authorized statute, rely Bridge Fund we on the well- 43-2-203(2), section 17 C.R.S. to under statutory interpretation. established rules suggests, its name the revenue As First, statutory language it we look at the from the tax is used to build and maintain self. Colorado State Bd. Medical Exam county highways bridges. and Each munici- (Colo. Saddoris, 825 P.2d iners pality "withinthe is entitled to located 1992). statutory language Where the is clear tax revenue a share of the certain, and the statute should be construed county.4 collected Where, however, as written. Id. the statu unclear, controversy in tory language ambiguous this ease centers is or we rely definition of the Road and Fund es- may on other tools of construc 43-2-202(1), tablished 17 C.R.S. legislative history tion such as or administra (1993),which states: interpretation in tive order to discern and A.B. effectuate intent.
A fund to be known as the road Press, Inc. v. is and & and created established Hirschfeld Denver, fund (Colo.1991); Howard each of this state. Such Mechanical, Depart shall consist the revenue derived E lec. Inc. v. from (Colo. Revenue, the tax authorized to be levied under sec- ment 4,3-2-203 1989). for road and con- struction, maintenance, administration, moneys received all A. expendi-
state or federal bridges, governs 43-2-202 which the Road ture on roads and other Section provides Fund that the fund can become available purpose.... include revenue from three sources: municipality any county of this 2. The statute amended and recodified effec- Each located in was January changes tive 1995. No relevant were state is entitled to receive from the and, convenience, we made in the statute fund of the wherein it is refer to the current codification. equal fifty percent located an amount accruing to said fund from extension provisions requiring 3. have Both taxes shareback pay under authorized to be made over some of the revenue against section 43-2-203 valuation for assess- generated by that tax to the Cities. The Cities do within its ment of taxable challenge County’s compliance with separate boundaries.... provision the shareback (1993) (emphasis add- Only tax law. the road and shareback ed). provi- The road and tax shareback provision at See n. 4 is issue here. infra. is at issue here. sion portion of the statute states: The relevant tax; projects through federal the Road and Fund (3) “any programs; and usage prohibited by unless such is law. Un- become available to the for such interpretation, “any” der its broad means all purpose.” The statute does not define the sources, including other revenue “any moneys” “may terms ownership tax. See Webster’s Third New available.” (3d 1986) Dictionary International ed. (defining “any” “non-specific expan-, The Cities contend this statute must be sive”). addition, asserts conjunction with read the statute control- tax revenue is (Gen- ling the Adams General Fund “specifically law” because the Fund). spe- eral The Cities assert that the Board of Commissioners allocated the reve- cific tax must be into *4 Bridge nue to the Road and Fund the 1992 and, deposited, the General Fund once can- County budget. See Black’s Law expended bridges. not be for roads and Sec- (6th 1990) Dictionary (defining ed. “allo- Fund, tion 30-25-105 creates a General prescribe particular cate” as “to use for provides: particular moneys”). County relies county general A fund to be known as the discretionary on its budget powers broad un- hereby fund is created and established 30-ll-107(2)(a), der section 12A C.R.S. each of the counties of the state of Colora- (1986), presumption validity and the of which county general do. The shall consist accompanies budgetary an exercise of its except specifi- revenue powers 30-ll-107(2)(b), 12A under section cally purposes. law other for (1986), position. C.R.S. to assert its 30-25-105, (emphasis 12A C.R.S. added). The Cities contend that because the “specifically tax is not al- B. law” to a certain fund it must be statutory language Given that the is Moreover, deposited into the General Fund. respect not clear with to whether the 30-25-106, Cities assert 12A directly tax revenue can be allo (1986), expressly prohibits allocations Bridge cated to the Road and we must from the General Fund to road and turn to other sources to construe section 43- provides:
construction. Section 30-25-106 (1993). 2-202,17 C.R.S. look first to We The board of commissioners is au- legislative history and next to the administra appropriate money thorized interpretation given tive to the statute since county general ordinary county fund for all its enactment. expenses except expenditures ... ... bridges_ legislation question was enacted (emphasis 12A C.R.S. Assembly adopted before the General added).5 practice tape recording current its hear- response, County However, In ings contends that and floor debates. the statu- language “any moneys may tory other amendments resulted from a 1969 re- pur- port by Highway become available to the for such Committee to Revenue pose” gives Assembly the Adams Board of the Colorado General recommend- “any” ing changes Commissioners broad discretion to use in what is now section 43-2- money to fund possible construction 202.6 The 1969 statute’s list rev- addressing 5. There are two cases the issue of able in that the taxes at issue "transferring” money between the General Fund were not General Greeley and the Road and Rather, Fund. In receipt upon Fund. the revenue was allo Comm’rs, (Colo. Board App.1981) directly cated Road City Springs Colorado v. Board of 648 P.2d (Colo.App. 1982), appeals the court of held that could funds predecessor 6. Before its amendment in not be transferred from the General Fund to the provided: to section 43-2-202 prohibitory Road and language Fund due to the 30-25-106, "county in section A as 12A C.R.S. fund to be known However, distinguish hereby the instant case is fund” is created and established moneys to include all moneys” provision Bridge Fund Road and for the enue sources available.” commis- become “appropriation “which included available and “all other sioners” Aurora, at 379. bridge purposes” instead together sections 30-25- Construing “any phrase current conclude, did the we purposes.” available for such County may appeals, that Adams court of deleting “ap- report recommended Bridge Fund allocate to the changing the “other phrase and propriation” restricted for some which are not funds moneys” to the current version. phrase provision or stat purpose constitutional addition, suggested creating the report ute. the coun- sharing program between municipalities.7 and their ties C. Although recommended consistent with the interpretation is This report did changes made in were by the given to the statute interpretation limiting revenue sources discuss of Local Govern and the Division counties did it bridge funds. Nor that Adams Coun The record reflects ment. was why “appropriation” phrase mention specific owner ty consistently allocated has moneys” language “other deleted and the *5 to its Road and ship tax revenue hesitate to read too changed. While we was Fund; only allocated has percentage so silence, rea- report’s it seems much into the In are records changed over time. evidence changes that were sonable to conclude Transporta Department of of the Colorado in nature and seen as technical majority great of all showing that the place significant did not intend to drafters specific owner rely on the counties county’s budgetary pow- Colorado a limitations on new pay for roads and ship tax revenues appeals of stated: ers.8 As the court of Local bridges. The Division Government simply amendments do not 1970 [T]he permitting interpreted the statute as also has as a meth- appropriations eliminate ownership tax revenues specific use bridges. funding od of for roads Indeed, recognized in Riv we purpose.9 provides for a road language amended State, 871 P.2d Produce Co. v. “all other erton levy tax and broadens the $2,000, equivalent of less ed to be than of the state of Colorado. in each of the counties city by such or amount shall be receivable fund shall consist road and furnished, and federal of material or received from state town in the form of all boundaries, by counly by expended performed for road to be a within its sources work construction, and ad- county. and ministration; maintenance by appropriation com- Assembly: High- Report to the Colorado General missioners; (Dec. 1969). available for and all other way 9 Revenue Committee bridge purposes. added). 120-1-2, (1963) (emphasis legislature has intended to limit 8. When the par- to a sources available Highway of the 7.The recommendation See, directly. program, done so it has ticular Report to the in its 1969 Revenue Committee (Social (1995 Supp.) e.g., § 11B C.R.S. Assembly regarding the cre- Colorado General Fund). that a The statute dictates Service requirement is as follows: ation of a shareback moneys” only up any to make "other can utilize relating to the That the law tax. budgetary the social services shortfalls after and the Dep't Social Servs.v. Board Colorado Comm’rs, provide of the amended to fund be 50% (Colo.1985). The Road 17 properly the valuation of revenue raised from preference for uti- Fund creates no city of a or in- within the boundaries bridge tax and its attend- of the road and lization corporated extension of the town provision over other sources ant shareback bridge levy against such valuation be revenue. paid city collected to said or town when over treasurer, counly provision that with the Department of Local Af- town, within the 9. Located agreement city with mutual said fairs, gives Local Government the Division of equivalent county, may elect to receive the authorized and is assistance to local of materials fur- of such amount in the form among things on local nished, to conduct research performed its bound- or work within 32-104(l)(e), aries, government financial county, where issues. but in those cases 24— 10AC.R.S. revenue is estimat- the annual amount of such (Colo.1994), the use of dissenting: owner Chief Justice VOLLACK ship bridge projects. taxes fund road and appeals, affirms the court of give appro often consider and We which held that Adams can allocate priate contemporaneous deference revenue derived from the interpretation consistent of a statute made entity charged governmental with its partially statutory and thus avoid its El Paso interpretation or enforcement. obligation to share its road and Craddock, Equalization Bd. juris- municipalities revenues with the in its (Colo.1993). When, here, P.2d plain language diction. Because interpretation the administrative is a reason governing statutory expressly pro- schemes able construction of the statute consistent allocation, hibits such I dissent. public policy, persuasive.10 with we find it Id. I.
D. Finally, willing we are not to limit As this case complex involves numerous manage discretion to its fi funding schemes related to nancial affairs without clear au taxation, begin by engaging I expo a brief thority mandating that result. A board Colorado, sition on the relevant statutes. In given degree commissioners is a wide bridges counties maintain in determining budgetary of discretion mat unincorporated portions of coun 30-ll-107(2)(b), county. § ters for the 12A ties. order finance the cost of such (1986); Beacom v. Board of maintenance, statutorily permit counties are (Colo.1983); Ti impose ted to a road and mill Williams, honovich v. 144, 148, 196 Colo. *6 property county, all taxable within the in 1051, 1054 (1978). Here, P.2d Adams cluding property municipal within bound specific pur decided to allocate funds to a (1993).2 aries. 17 C.R.S. Mu and, pose absence of hand, nicipalities, solely on the other are prohibition, upheld. its choice should be responsible for maintenance the roads and IV. bridges municipal within their boundaries. reasons, judgment For these -124,17 (1993).3 we affirm the §§ 43-2-123 to C.R.S. appeals. of the court of county’s A road and work is to be VOLLACK, C.J., dissents, statutorily funded from a created and LOHR and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., join 43-2-202, in the dissent. road and fund. 17 C.R.S. X, § beginning ensuing 10. Article 18 of the Colorado Constitution anee on hand at the of said revenues, generated by operation year ties revenues taxes on the fiscal and the amount of all revenue, of motor vehicles to the construction and mainte- other than to estimated public highways. Although directly nance of during year, defray be received said fiscal to all tax, applicable expenditures payments to the a state estimated to be vehicles, personal property tax on motor this made from the road and provision during year. indicates that Adams alloca- said fiscal tion of these revenues to its Road and public policy. Fund is consistent with provides: 3.Section 43-2-123 systems. street There shall be estab- property. 1. A mill is a tax on Each mill city, city county, lished in each and incor- represents per $1 $1000 of tax assessment porated system town a of streets to be known property value assessment. See Black's Law Dic- ci1y system. as the street It shall not include (6th Ed.1990). tionary 994 any by part street established law as a highway system. state 43-2-203(2) provides: 2. Section 43-2-124(4) provides: Section city system, board The commissioners in each streets both arterial and streets, is authorized to such rate of tax on local service shall be constructed and properly by respective city, city all taxable located within the maintained required, county, incorporated as added when to the estimated bal- town. consist of general fund “shall that the (1993).4 moneys for the coun- states The sources specifically except that revenue specified in the all bridge fund are ty purposes.” Sec- (1) by law for other allocated The road and follows: statute as (1986) 30-25-106, specifically 43-2-203; 12A levy authorized section mill county commis- board of provides that the from the moneys received appropriate to mon- expendi- is not authorized sioners or federal expendi- ey general fund from the bridges; and tures on bridges.7 tures for roads and may become available which purpose. 43-2- county for such Section II. provi- apportionment an 202 also includes 5 (the pro- provision”) “sharebaek sion in the instant case surrounds dispute within a municipalities located that the vides allocating a ma- County’s practice of fifty percent to receive are entitled from its jority it collects of the revenues accruing to the the revenue ownership tax to the specific deriving from the bridge fund The effect of this Road 43-2- levy authorized section bridge mill that, commencing this since allocation is County has been practice in drastically reduce its X, able of the Colorado Con- section Article correspondingly reduce levy, thus mill specific ownership tax authorizes stitution allocate that it must carry the amount of revenue out In order to certain vehicles.6 municipalities pursuant to the share- to the mandate, the General As- constitutional provision. back This is because upon certain vehicles sembly has levied a provision subject sharebaek revenue §§ 42-3-101 Colorado residents. owned County Road and from the Adams -144, con- Neither the from the road and Fund is revenue authorizing provision stitutional levy, not revenue from the mill tax, implementing stat- nor the ownership tax. utes, the revenues from specifically allocate county road and fund or tax to the Specifically, part of the 1992 bridge purposes. to road and County Board of County budget, the Adams Board) (the $3,400,- county general fund is created Commissioners (1986), 12A C.R.S. *7 assembly classify- 43-2-202(1) general laws provides pertinent part: shall enact in 4. Section prescribing ing methods of motor vehicles ... county road and to be known as the A fund property, determining taxable value of such each created and established in fund is requiring payment graduated of a annual and county shall consist of of this state. Such fund thereon, ownership specific which tax shall tax tax authorized to derived from the the revenue upon ad taxes such be in lieu of all valorem 43-2-203 for road and be levied under section property.... maintenance, construction, and admin- istration, county moneys received specific graduated Such annual governments for ex- state or federal any registration be in addition to tax shall any bridges, penditure on roads property, imposed shall on such or license fees available to the designated county at the payable officer be to purpose. such registration or license same time as 43-2-202(2) part: provides pertinent in 5. Section apportioned, payable, are and shall be fees political paid subdi- over to the distributed any county municipality located in Each be the state in such manner visions of to receive from the this state is entitled prescribed law. wherein it road and fund of Const, X, fifty percent equal Colo. art. an amount is located accruing to said fund from exten- the revenue levy pertinent part: to be made provides of the authorized sion in 7.Section 30-25-106 against the 43-2-203 valuation under section is autho- board of commissioners all taxable assessment money appropriate from rized corporate within boundaries. ordinary county expenses general fund for all X, expenditures except for ... ... Colorado Constitu- section 6 of the 6. Article bridges.... pertinent part: provides in together pos Road and be construed and harmonized if tax to the Adams Mavromatis, By allocating specific all of its owner- sible. Lakewood v. (Colo.1991). pari ship tax Road P.2d materia is a revenues statutory requires the Board was able to rule of construction which County’s relating subject mill that statutes to the same reduce Adams together in 4.433 mills in 1991 to 2.233 mills matter be construed order to corresponding .fully legislature. 1992. The decrease net effectuate the intent of the $3,921,- Charnes, 1039, 1043 Walgreen revenues from the amounted to Co. v. (Colo.1991). year. reviewing A 266 for the 1992 fiscal Because court should at provision only provides tempt give for alloca- shareback reconcile such statutes so as to provisions tion to the cities of the revenue from the effect to all the of each statute. (Colo.1991). levy, part People, road and mill this action on the M.S. payment reduced its $1,700,000 cities more than between 1991 A. time, and 1992. At the same case, The statutes relevant to this when expenditures was able to increase its total together given plain read their and ordi- services, services which do not road nary meaning, unambiguously that dictate municipalities. benefit the the revenues derived from the own- ership deposited tax must be into the III. fund, general rather than the majority holds establishing fund. The statute specific ownership allocation of the tax to the county general fund states that “[t]he Fund was county general fund shall consist of all coun- authorized, prohibited, and was fact ty except specifically Maj. op. statute. at 202-203. an ex- After law purposes.” 30-25-105 analysis concededly sparse haustive added). (emphasis statutory Nowhere in the legislative history statutory of the relevant implementing specific ownership scheme schemes, concludes that “specifically tax is allocated” for road Assembly General did not intend to limit the bridge purposes. §§ 42-3-101 to -144. sources from which counties could allocate provi- Nor does the Colorado constitutional revenue to their funds. sion which mandates the Maj. op. at 201-203. specify how the revenue from the tax Thus, must be used.8 section 30-25-105 read agree majority’s I with the statement of -144, together with sections 42-3-101 to dic- relevant rules construction. tates that the tax must be dissent, however, I because sections 30-25- fund, general into the rath- manifestly prohibit 105 and 30-25-106 er than the fund. allocation of revenue from the owner- *8 ship county tax to the fund. Moreover, expressly section 30-25-106 I disagree also dissent because I with the prohibits utilizing the from Board revenue majority’s conclusion that section 43-2-202 county general expendi from the fund for such authorizes allocation. Because these bridges.9 tures for roads and Colorado any unambiguous, statutes are clear and in- Comm’rs, Springs v. Board quiry into the intent behind such P.2d (Colo.App.1982); Greeley 671-72 v. unnecessary. statutes is Board 644 P.2d clear, language (Colo.App.1981). Although majority Where the of a is a statute the cor rectly points court must it construe the statute as is writ out .that these eases are distin People, guishable ten. Dunton v. 898 P.2d because the tax (Colo.1995). pari Statutes in materia should es the instant case were never welfare, service, supra accompanying public public hospitals, 8. See note 7 and text. for debt works, public contingencies, purposes and voted prohibits 9. Section 30-25-106 also the Board by the electors. making expenditures general from from the fund majori bridges,” that the words “such it is manifest the General expen- “for purpose” in the first clause mean un ty’s interpretation of section 30-25-105 bridges.” on roads and As revenue diture 30-25-106. language of section dermines the specific ownership tax is not from the derived on the could avoid the restrictions The Board expenditures roads money designated for county general fund from the use of revenue not au- bridges, section 43-2-202 does and directly to one allocating revenue simply to the the allocation of such funds thorize 30- purposes under section of the restricted fund. designating such revenue 25-106 instead of required by county general fund as to the Moreover, construing preclude 43-2-202 statutory The rules of section 30-25-105. road allocation of revenues to interpreting interpretation preclude us from specifically des- fund that are not particular scheme so as a statute -within bridge purposes har- ignated to road nullity. People render a related statute 30- section 43-2-202 with sections monizes (Colo.1985). T.O., consistent with our statutory principles of con-
well-established
Lakewood,
ity in those sections the tax between rates
applicable to interstate and certain intrastate
vehicles violated the Commerce Clause. Id. special ownership
at 1228. The use of taxes Produce, at
was not issue Riverton and we holding regarding
rendered no in that case
the use of the revenue from those taxes.
IV. hold, foregoing analy-
I would based on the
sis, improper that the Board’s actions were unambigu-
because: section 48-2-202 is plain language
ous and its does not authorize County’s allocation of the
specific ownership tax revenue to the Adams sec- expressly
tions 30-25-105 and 30-25-106
preclude Therefore, such allocation. I dis-
sent. say
I am authorized to that Justice LOHR join
and Justice KIRSHBAUM this dis-
sent. PRICE, Petitioner,
Max D.
v.
THE INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS
OFFICE OF STATE OF COLORA-
DO; Department The Colorado of Cor-
rections; Compensa- and the Colorado Authority, Respondents.
tion Insurance M.
Jeannine ELTRICH and the Industri- Appeals
al Claim Office of the State Colorado, Petitioners,
CITY OF NORTHGLENN and Colorado
Compensation Authority, Insurance
Respondents. 95SC303,
Nos. 95SC535. Colorado,
Supreme Court of
En Banc.
June 1996. (95SC535)
Rehearing July Denied