## Facts

- Denver voters approved a charter amendment requiring most city employees hired after a specified date to become Denver residents as a condition of continued employment.
- Durango adopted a personnel rule imposing residency requirements in certain instances as a condition of continued employment.
- Colorado enacted § 8-2-120 (1989 Supp.), which generally prohibited municipalities from adopting or enforcing municipal employee residency requirements, subject to limited exceptions.
- Denver and Durango continued enforcing their residency requirements, asserting home rule authority under Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6(a) to set municipal employment conditions.
- The Denver District Court granted summary judgment for Denver and Durango, declared § 8-2-120 unconstitutional as applied to them, and permanently enjoined enforcement against those municipalities.
- The State, Governor, and intervening unions/employees appealed; Denver and Durango cross-appealed on related issues.

## Issues

1. Whether § 8-2-120 unconstitutionally infringes home rule municipalities’ authority under Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6(a) to determine conditions of municipal employment by prohibiting employee residency requirements.
2. Whether municipal employee residency requirements are a matter of local concern, statewide concern, or mixed concern for purposes of Colorado home rule preemption analysis.
3. If the subject is mixed, whether the asserted state interest and need for uniformity justify state statutory supremacy over conflicting home rule provisions.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and permanent injunction.
- The court held that municipal employee residency requirements in home rule municipalities are a matter of local concern.
- Because the subject was local, Denver’s charter provision and Durango’s rule prevailed over the conflicting state statute within those municipalities.
- The court held § 8-2-120 unconstitutional as applied to home rule municipalities insofar as it purported to preempt their residency requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Under Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6, home rule municipalities may legislate in matters of local and municipal concern, and conflicting state statutes must yield on such matters.
- Colorado resolves conflicts between state statutes and home rule enactments by classifying the subject as:
  - local concern (home rule controls),
  - statewide concern (state controls), or
  - mixed concern (state may control if the state interest is sufficiently weighty and uniformity is needed).
- Conditions of municipal employment, including residency requirements, are closely tied to internal municipal governance and are generally treated as local matters in home rule cities absent a demonstrated, overriding need for statewide uniformity.
- Generalized assertions that residency rules affect regional labor and housing markets were insufficient, on this record, to convert municipal employee residency into a matter of predominant statewide concern.

## Conclusion

The court held that home rule municipalities retain constitutional authority to impose municipal employee residency requirements as a local employment condition, and it invalidated the state’s attempt to preempt those requirements through § 8-2-120 as applied to Denver and Durango.


City & County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764 (Colo. 1990)