City of Boulder v. Public Service Company of Colorado , 420 P.3d 289 ( 2018 )

Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the
public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at
http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the
Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org.
ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
June 18, 2018
2018 CO 59
No. 16SC894, City of Boulder v. Public Service Company of Colorado—Declaratory
Judgment Actions—C.R.C.P. 57—C.R.C.P. 106—Municipal Ordinances—Finality.
This case arises out of respondents’ challenge to the petitioner city’s attempt to
create a light and power utility. Respondents assert that the ordinance establishing the
utility violates the city’s charter. Respondents thus seek a declaratory judgment
deeming that ordinance null and void. The city asserts that the respondents’ complaint
is, in reality, an untimely C.R.C.P. 106 challenge to a prior ordinance by which the city
had concluded that it could meet certain prerequisites for the formation of the utility as
prescribed by the city charter. The district court agreed with the city and dismissed
respondents’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
A division of the court of appeals, however, vacated the district court’s
judgment, concluding that neither of the pertinent ordinances was final and that
therefore, respondents’ complaint was premature.
The supreme court now reverses the division’s decision and remands the case for
further proceedings on respondents’ declaratory judgment claim. Although the court
agrees with the city that the division erred, contrary to petitioners’ position and the
premises on which the courts below proceeded, the court agrees with respondents that
the complaint asserted a viable and timely claim seeking a declaration that the
ordinance establishing the utility violated the city charter. Accordingly, the court
concludes that the district court had jurisdiction to hear respondents’ declaratory
judgment claim, and the court remands the case to allow that claim to proceed.
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
2018 CO 59
Supreme Court Case No. 16SC894
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Case No. 15CA1371
Petitioners:
The City of Boulder, Colorado; the City of Council for the City of Boulder, Colorado;
Suzanne Jones, in her official capacity as Mayor; Aaron Brockett, in his official capacity
as Mayor Pro Tem; and Cindy Carlisle, Jill Alder Grano, Lisa Morzel, Mirabai Kuk
Nagle, Bob Yates, Sam Weaver, and Mary Young, in their official capacities as members
of the City Council,
v.
Respondent:
Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado corporation.
Judgment Reversed
en banc
June 18, 2018
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Boulder City Attorney’s Office
Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney
David J. Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Kathleen Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Boulder, Colorado
Holland & Hart LLP
Marcy G. Glenn
Denver, Colorado
Hamre, Rodriguez, Ostrander & Dingess, PC
James Birch
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent:
Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP
John R. Sperber
Denver, Colorado
Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP
Matthew D. Clark
Boulder, Colorado
Attorney for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League:
Dianne M. Criswell
Denver, Colorado
JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 This case arises out of respondent Public Service Company of Colorado’s
(“Xcel’s”) challenge to the City of Boulder’s attempt to create a light and power utility.
Xcel asserts that the ordinance establishing the utility, Ordinance No. 7969 (the “Utility
Ordinance”), violates article XIII, section 178 of Boulder’s City Charter. Xcel thus seeks
a declaratory judgment deeming the Utility Ordinance “ultra vires, null, void, and of no
effect.” Petitioners, the City of Boulder, its mayor, mayor pro tem, and city council
members (collectively, “Boulder”), assert that Xcel’s complaint is, in reality, a
C.R.C.P. 106 challenge to a prior ordinance, Ordinance No. 7917 (the “Metrics
Ordinance”), by which Boulder had concluded that it could meet certain metrics
regarding the costs, efficiency, and reliability of such a utility. Boulder contends that
this challenge was untimely and thereby deprived the district court of jurisdiction to
hear Xcel’s complaint.
¶2 The district court agreed with Boulder and dismissed Xcel’s complaint. Xcel
appealed, and in a unanimous, published decision, a division of the court of appeals
vacated the district court’s judgment. Pub. Serv. Co. v. City of Boulder, 2016 COA 138,
¶ 22, 410 P.3d 680, 684. As pertinent here, the division, like the district court, presumed
that Xcel was principally proceeding under C.R.C.P. 106. See id. at ¶¶ 10–18, 410 P.3d
at 683–84. The division concluded, however, that neither the Metrics Ordinance nor the
Utility Ordinance was final, and therefore, Xcel’s complaint was premature. Id. at ¶ 18,
410 P.3d at 684. The division thus vacated the district court’s judgment. Id. at ¶ 22,
410 P.3d at 684.
3
¶3 Boulder petitioned for certiorari, principally arguing that the division erred in
concluding that the Metrics Ordinance and the Utility Ordinance were not final for
purposes of judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106. We granted that petition and now
reverse.1
¶4 Although we agree with Boulder that the division erred, contrary to Boulder’s
position and the premises on which the courts below proceeded, we agree with Xcel
that its complaint asserted a viable and timely claim seeking a declaration that the
Utility Ordinance violated Boulder’s City Charter. Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court had jurisdiction to hear Xcel’s declaratory judgment claim challenging the
Utility Ordinance, and we remand this case to allow that claim to proceed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
¶5 Several years ago, Boulder’s citizens voted to add a section to the City Charter
that would permit the City Council to establish a public power utility if certain
conditions were satisfied. See Boulder, Colo., Charter art. XIII, § 178 (2018). That
section provides, in pertinent part:
1 Specifically, we granted certiorari to consider the following issues:
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that two Boulder
municipal ordinances were not final actions for the purpose of judicial
review under C.R.C.P. 106.
2. Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating the district court’s
judgment rather than remanding the case for further findings
regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
4
The city council, at such time as it deems appropriate, subject to the
conditions herein, is authorized to establish, by ordinance, a public utility
under the authority in the state constitution and the city charter to create
light plants, power plants, and any other public utilities or works or ways
local in use and extent for the provision of electric power. The city council
shall establish a light and power utility only if it can demonstrate, with
verification by a third-party independent expert, that the utility can
acquire the electrical distribution system in Boulder and charge rates that
do not exceed those rates charged by Xcel Energy at the time of
acquisition and that such rates will produce revenues sufficient to pay for
operating expenses and debt payments, plus an amount equal to
twenty-five percent (25%) of the debt payments, and with reliability
comparable to Xcel Energy and a plan for reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy . . . .
Boulder, Colo., Charter art. XIII, § 178(a).
¶6 Pursuant to this provision, Boulder began to explore its ability to satisfy the
metrics set forth in the Charter (the “Charter Metrics”). To this end, Boulder city
employees and consultants presented the Boulder City Council with an analysis that
demonstrated that various modeled scenarios would satisfy the Charter Metrics. The
city employees and consultants thereafter provided additional information requested
by the Council (the “Base Materials”). The Council then directed the city manager to
select a third-party independent expert to verify that the Base Materials demonstrated
that Boulder could meet the Charter Metrics. The manager did so, and the independent
expert reviewed the Base Materials and subsequently verified that the Base Materials
demonstrated that Boulder could meet these requirements.
¶7 Based on the independent expert’s report, the City Council passed the Metrics
Ordinance, accepting the expert’s findings and concluding that the Charter Metrics had
been satisfied. On the same day it passed the Metrics Ordinance, the City Council also
5
passed an ordinance authorizing the city manager to negotiate for the acquisition of
various pieces of real property and equipment that would be needed to construct the
utility. The City Council authorized the city manager to acquire these interests and
assets through the exercise of the power of eminent domain and to initiate
condemnation proceedings to do so. Xcel did not challenge either of these ordinances.
¶8 Approximately eight months later, the City Council passed the Utility
Ordinance, amending the Boulder Revised Code to “establish and define the light and
power utility” of the city of Boulder. Less than one month later, Xcel filed the present
action, in which it principally sought a declaration, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57, that the
Utility Ordinance violated the City Charter. Specifically, Xcel alleged that the City
Council had exceeded the limits on its authority as set forth in section 178 of Title XIII of
the Charter because the models on which Boulder had relied incorrectly assumed that
(1) Boulder could unilaterally decide to serve and receive revenue from more than 7,000
Xcel electricity customers located outside the city limits and (2) as a result, costs to
separate and reconnect the Xcel electric system after formation of the utility would be
minimal. In fact, Xcel asserted, after Boulder passed the Metrics Ordinance, the Public
Utilities Commission (“PUC”) had concluded that Boulder did not have the right to act
unilaterally to serve customers outside Boulder’s city limits. Xcel alleged that because
all of the models on which Boulder had relied depended on assumptions regarding
service rights and separation costs that were inconsistent with the PUC’s orders,
Boulder could not then determine whether it could meet the Charter Metrics. Xcel thus
sought a declaration that “as a matter of law, the Utility Ordinance, being in violation of
6
the Charter, is ultra vires, null, void, and of no effect.” In the alternative, Xcel asserted a
claim for judicial review of the Utility Ordinance under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Xcel made
clear, however, that it asserted this claim only in the event that the district court
determined declaratory relief to be unavailable.
¶9 Boulder moved to dismiss Xcel’s complaint, arguing that (1) in substance, Xcel’s
complaint was a C.R.C.P. 106 challenge to the Metrics Ordinance; (2) this challenge was
untimely; and (3) because the timing requirement was jurisdictional, the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review Xcel’s complaint.
¶10 The district court ultimately agreed and dismissed Xcel’s complaint, concluding
that the untimeliness of Xcel’s C.R.C.P 106 challenge to the Metrics Ordinance deprived
that court of jurisdiction.
¶11 Xcel appealed, and in a unanimous, published opinion, a division of the court of
appeals vacated the district court’s judgment. See Pub. Serv. Co., ¶ 22, 410 P.3d at 684.
Like the district court, the division construed Xcel’s complaint as having been
principally asserted under C.R.C.P. 106. See id. at ¶¶ 10–18, 410 P.3d at 683–84. Unlike
the district court, however, the division concluded that neither the Metrics Ordinance
nor the Utility Ordinance was final for purposes of C.R.C.P 106(b). Id. at ¶ 18, 410 P.3d
at 684. The division reasoned that “neither ordinance establishes a final utility plan nor
resolves the issues related to the preconditions necessary to establish such a plan.” Id.
at ¶ 13, 410 P.3d at 683. The division then briefly acknowledged that Xcel had also
sought a declaratory judgment, but relying on its C.R.C.P. 106 analysis, the division
concluded that the declaratory judgment claim also failed due to the lack of finality of
7
the ordinances at issue. Id. at ¶¶ 19–20, 410 P.3d at 684. For these reasons, the division
concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the division vacated the
judgment. Id. at ¶ 22, 410 P.3d at 684.
¶12 Boulder then petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari, and we granted that
petition.
II. Analysis
¶13 We begin by discussing the applicable standard of review. We then discuss the
differing characterizations of Xcel’s claim for relief adopted by the parties and the
courts below, and we conclude that, as Xcel contends, its complaint principally asserted
a claim for declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57 challenging the Utility Ordinance, not a
claim for judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106. Finally, we consider whether the district
court had jurisdiction over Xcel’s declaratory judgment complaint, and we conclude
that it did. We thus reverse the division’s judgment and remand this case for further
proceedings.
A. Standard of Review
¶14 C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) provides for a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Trinity Broad. of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916, 924
(Colo. 1993). “If the motion is a factual attack on the jurisdictional allegations of the
complaint, such as the timeliness of the notice [in a governmental immunity case], the
trial court may receive any competent evidence pertaining to the motion.” Id. The
plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction, and “the standard of appellate review
is highly deferential.” Id. at 925. When all of the relevant evidence has been presented
8
to the trial court, the appellate court can apply C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) to the record before it
and need not remand for additional evidentiary proceedings. Id. In addition, when, as
here, the parties dispute only the characterization of the complaint at issue and not the
jurisdictional facts alleged within it, the trial court can decide the jurisdictional question
as a matter of law, and our review is de novo. See Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 452
(Colo. 2001); cf. Lakeview Assoc. v. Maes, 907 P.2d 580, 583–84 (Colo. 1995) (“When . . .
the controlling facts are undisputed, the legal effect of those facts constitutes a question
of law.”).
B. The Nature of Xcel’s Complaint
¶15 As an initial matter, we must determine the nature of Xcel’s complaint because,
as noted above, Xcel maintains that its complaint asserted a viable and timely
declaratory judgment claim while Boulder and both courts below have proceeded on
the assumption that Xcel’s complaint was, in substance, a claim for judicial review
under C.R.C.P. 106.
¶16 We begin with the allegations of the complaint itself. The first sentence of
paragraph one of the complaint stated, “Public Service brings this action for declaratory
relief and an Order voiding the City of Boulder’s May 6, 2014, ordinance creating a light
and power utility [i.e., the Utility Ordinance].” That paragraph went on to allege that
the Utility Ordinance was “ultra vires because the Boulder City Council . . . exceeded
the voter-mandated limits on its authority set forth in the 2011 amendment to the City’s
Charter.” The complaint explained that Boulder was required to demonstrate and
verify that it could satisfy the Charter Metrics before it created the utility, and the
9
complaint noted that Boulder could not do so at the time that it created the utility.
Therefore, Xcel asserted, the Utility Ordinance was “ultra vires, null, void, and of no
effect.”
¶17 The complaint further alleged, “This lawsuit concerns the City’s unlawful
decision to adopt Ordinance No. 7969 (the “Utility Ordinance”), which purports to
establish a light and power utility,” and the complaint reiterated,
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief concerning the Utility Ordinance under
Colo. R. Civ. P. 57. In the alternative, and only if the Court determines
that a claim for declaratory relief is unavailable, Plaintiff also seeks
judicial review under Colo. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(4) of the City’s decision to
adopt the Utility Ordinance.
¶18 Consistent with the foregoing, the complaint proceeded to assert two claims for
relief. The first was a claim for a declaratory judgment under C.R.C.P. 57, alleging,
“Public Service is entitled to a declaration that, as a matter of law, the Utility Ordinance,
being in violation of the Charter, is ultra vires, null, void, and of no effect.” The second
was an alternative claim for judicial review of the Utility Ordinance under
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), which claim was expressly asserted “only if the Court determines
that declaratory relief is unavailable.”
¶19 In sum, as Xcel asserts, contrary to Boulder’s assertion and the assumption of the
courts below that Xcel’s complaint was a claim for C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review of the
Metrics Ordinance, the complaint on its face principally alleged a claim for a
declaratory judgment that the Utility Ordinance was void under the City Charter. Only
in the alternative did Xcel assert a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) claim, and this alternative claim,
too, was directed to the Utility Ordinance, not the Metrics Ordinance.
10
¶20 This does not end our inquiry, however, because we acknowledge that we must
look to the substance, not the form, of Xcel’s complaint. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson,
367 P.2d 594, 596 (Colo. 1961) (“The substance of the claim rather than the appellation
applied to the pleading by the litigant is what controls. If from the allegations of the
complaint the plaintiff is entitled to relief under any ‘theory,’ it is sufficient to state a
claim.”). Looking at the substance of Xcel’s complaint confirms that the complaint
principally sought a declaratory judgment as to the Utility Ordinance, not judicial
review of either the Metrics Ordinance or the Utility Ordinance.
¶21 To be sure, Xcel’s complaint discussed Boulder’s Base Materials and the history
of the Metrics Ordinance. The complaint also argued at some length as to why the work
done by Boulder and its independent expert did not satisfy the Charter Metrics.
¶22 As we understand it, however, the complaint did not make these allegations in
order to challenge the Metrics Ordinance. Indeed, Xcel concedes that it is not
challenging that ordinance, and Xcel does not appear to dispute that such a challenge
would be untimely. Rather, Xcel’s position is that notwithstanding the passage of the
Metrics Ordinance, Boulder has not actually satisfied the Charter Metrics, and therefore,
the passage of the Utility Ordinance violated the City Charter.
¶23 For these reasons, we disagree with Boulder’s contention that Xcel is asserting an
untimely C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) claim relating to the Metrics Ordinance. We likewise
conclude that the district court erred in construing Xcel’s complaint as a
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) claim for judicial review of the Metrics Ordinance and in determining
that that claim was untimely, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
11
And we conclude that the division erred in construing Xcel’s claim as a claim for
judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) and in deciding that the district court lacked
jurisdiction because neither the Metrics Ordinance nor the Utility Ordinance was final
for purposes of that rule.
C. Xcel’s Declaratory Judgment Claim
¶24 The question thus becomes whether the division erred in concluding that, to the
extent Xcel’s claim was a claim for a declaratory judgment, it still failed due to the lack
of finality of the Metrics Ordinance and the Utility Ordinance. Pub. Serv. Co., ¶¶ 19–20,
410 P.3d at 684. For several reasons, we believe that the division erred in so concluding.
¶25 First, we note that the division’s conclusion relied almost exclusively on its
analysis of Xcel’s claims under C.R.C.P. 106. Because, for the reasons discussed above,
we disagree with that analysis, we do not agree that the same analysis can be applied to
preclude Xcel’s declaratory judgment claim.
¶26 Second, we disagree with the division’s conclusion that Xcel’s declaratory
judgment claim rises or falls with its purported C.R.C.P. 106 claim. To the contrary, we
must consider Xcel’s declaratory judgment claim on its own merits.
¶27 C.R.C.P. 57 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Power to Declare Rights, etc.; Force of Declaration. District and
superior courts within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to
declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further
relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceedings shall be open to
objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed
for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and
effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment or decree.
12
(b) Who May Obtain Declaration of Rights. Any person . . . whose rights,
status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal
ordinance, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of
construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance,
contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other
legal relations thereunder.
....
(e) Not a Limitation. The enumeration in sections (b), (c), and (d) of this
Rule does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred
in section (a) of this Rule, in any proceeding where declaratory relief is
sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or
remove an uncertainty.
(f) When Court May Refuse to Declare Right. The court may refuse to
render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or
decree if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or
controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
¶28 This rule is “remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to ‘afford relief
from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal
relations.’” Toncray v. Dolan, 593 P.2d 956, 957 (Colo. 1979) (quoting C.R.C.P. 57(k);
§ 13-51-102, C.R.S. (1973)). As pertinent here, this court has long acknowledged that
litigants can use C.R.C.P. 57 to request the resolution of questions regarding the validity
or interpretation of a piece of legislation. See, e.g., Denver Ctr. for the Performing
Arts v. Briggs, 696 P.2d 299, 305–06 (Colo. 1985) (noting that the plaintiff had properly
challenged the constitutional validity of a tax ordinance in a declaratory judgment
action under C.R.C.P. 57); Toncray, 593 P.2d at 957 (“One whose rights are affected by a
statute may have its construction or validity determined by declaratory judgment.”).
¶29 This principle applies with equal force to a dispute over the validity of a
municipal ordinance. See Native Am. Rights Fund, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 97 P.3d 283,
13
287 (Colo. App. 2004) (noting that “constitutional questions and challenges to the
overall validity of a statute or ordinance are more properly reviewed under
C.R.C.P. 57”).
¶30 In particular, a litigant may properly bring a declaratory judgment action
challenging a municipal ordinance as violative of a city’s charter. A city’s charter is like
its constitution, and all ordinances that a city passes must comply with the terms of its
charter. See Flanders v. City of Pueblo, 160 P.2d 980, 981 (Colo. 1945); Olson v. Hillside
Cmty. Church SBC, 124 P.3d 874, 879 (Colo. App. 2005); see also City of Colo. Springs v.
Securcare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1247 (Colo. 2000) (noting that the Colorado
constitution grants home-rule cities broad legislative authority to draft and implement
their charters and ordinances regarding local and municipal matters and that a
home-rule city may adopt a zoning code as it chooses, as long as the code conforms
with constitutional limitations and the city’s own charter and ordinances); Service Oil
Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807, 811 (Colo. 1972) (noting that a home-rule city has “every
power possessed by the General Assembly as to local and municipal matters, unless
restricted by the terms of its Charter”), overruled on other grounds by Hartley v. City of
Colo. Springs, 764 P.2d 1216, 1225 (Colo. 1988).
¶31 Here, as discussed above, Xcel’s complaint alleged that Boulder exceeded its
authority under its charter when it passed the Utility Ordinance. Article XIII,
section 178 of the City Charter provides that the City of Boulder can establish a public
utility “only if it can demonstrate, with verification by a third-party independent
expert,” that the utility can (1) acquire the electrical distribution system in Boulder;
14
(2) charge rates that do not exceed the rates charged by Xcel at the time of acquisition;
(3) produce revenues sufficient to operate the utility and make debt payments, plus an
amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the debt payments; (4) produce energy
with reliability comparable to Xcel; and (5) create a plan for reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy. Xcel’s complaint
alleged that Boulder violated these requirements when it passed the Utility Ordinance
purporting to create the utility because Boulder had not demonstrated its then-current
ability to satisfy those Charter Metrics.
¶32 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of Xcel’s claims, we conclude that
the foregoing allegations sufficiently stated a viable declaratory judgment claim. See
Holderedge v. City of Cleveland, 402 S.W.2d 709, 713–14 (Tenn. 1966) (concluding that
the plaintiffs could properly test the validity of an amendment to the city’s zoning
ordinance under the state’s declaratory judgments act and that the state’s certiorari
process, under which a person aggrieved by a final order or judgment of a board or
commission could seek judicial review, was not the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy).
¶33 Finally, we do not agree that the Utility Ordinance was not final for purposes of
Xcel’s declaratory judgment claim. The parties here all agree that the Utility Ordinance
was a legislative, and not a quasi-judicial, act. A legislative act is defined as “[t]he
formal product of a legislature or other deliberative body exercising its powers.”
Legislative Act, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (cross-referencing to the third
meaning of “act”). Under the Boulder City Charter, the City Council is authorized to
15
act by ordinances, and the Charter provides for the effective date of such ordinances.
See Boulder, Colo., Charter art. II, §§ 16–18 (2018).
¶34 Here, the parties appear to agree that the Utility Ordinance became effective on
May 6, 2014, and no party appears to dispute that this was the formal product of the
City Council, exercising its legislative authority. Moreover, in our view, declaratory
relief would terminate the uncertainty or controversy alleged in Xcel’s complaint and
giving rise to this proceeding, namely, whether the adoption of the Utility Ordinance
was contrary to the Boulder City Charter. We therefore conclude that the Utility
Ordinance was final for purposes of Xcel’s declaratory judgment claim, and Boulder has
not argued that this declaratory judgment claim, which was filed twenty-eight days
after the effective date of the Utility Ordinance, was untimely.
¶35 For these reasons, we conclude that the division erred in determining that due to
the purported lack of finality of the Metrics Ordinance and the Utility Ordinance, Xcel’s
declaratory judgment claim was premature and the district court therefore lacked
jurisdiction over that claim.
¶36 In light of this disposition, we need not address whether the division erred in
vacating the district court’s judgment rather than remanding the case for further
findings regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Nor do we need to address Boulder’s
argument that were this court to affirm the division’s analysis of the finality of the
ordinances at issue, such a ruling would prevent a city like Boulder from adopting
policies in a properly sequential manner. Our conclusion that Xcel has stated a viable
16
and timely declaratory judgment claim challenging the Utility Ordinance will in no way
preclude Boulder or any other city from doing so.
III. Conclusion
¶37 For these reasons, we conclude that Xcel has stated a viable and timely
declaratory judgment claim against Boulder regarding the Utility Ordinance. We
therefore reverse the division’s judgment and remand this case with instructions that
the division return the case to the district court for further proceedings on that claim.
17