## Facts

- The Town of Telluride is a Colorado home-rule municipality.
- Telluride sought to acquire approximately 572 acres of land known as the “Valley Floor,” located outside (but adjacent to) the town’s municipal boundaries.
- The property was owned by San Miguel Valley Corporation and related entities (the landowners).
- Telluride adopted an ordinance authorizing condemnation of the Valley Floor for open space, parks, and recreation.
- In March 2004, Telluride filed an eminent-domain action to condemn the property after making a written offer to purchase that the landowners rejected.
- After the condemnation action was filed, the Colorado General Assembly enacted § 38-1-101(4)(b), C.R.S., which prohibited home-rule local governments from condemning property outside their borders for open space, parks, or recreation.
- Relying on the new statute, the landowners moved to dismiss Telluride’s condemnation action, arguing the town lacked authority to condemn outside its limits for the stated purposes.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding the statute unconstitutional as applied because it conflicted with the eminent-domain authority granted to home-rule municipalities by article XX of the Colorado Constitution.
- The landowners sought review in the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether article XX of the Colorado Constitution authorizes a home-rule municipality to condemn property outside its boundaries for open space, parks, and recreation as a public, local, and municipal purpose.
2. Whether § 38-1-101(4)(b), C.R.S., validly limits that home-rule condemnation power by prohibiting extraterritorial takings for open space, parks, or recreation.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order allowing Telluride’s condemnation case to proceed.
- The court held that article XX grants home-rule municipalities the power of eminent domain and related authority necessary to carry out that power.
- The court concluded that acquiring land for open space, parks, and recreation can qualify as a “lawful, public, local and municipal” purpose under article XX, even when the land is outside municipal boundaries.
- The court rejected the argument that extraterritorial condemnation by home-rule municipalities is limited to only the specific kinds of projects enumerated in article XX; the constitutional grant is not confined to that list.
- Because § 38-1-101(4)(b) attempted to bar a category of condemnations that article XX permits, the court held the statute unconstitutional and ineffective against Telluride’s action.
- The case returned to the trial court for continued condemnation proceedings consistent with the supreme court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A Colorado home-rule municipality’s condemnation authority may arise directly from Colo. Const. art. XX, including authority needed to make the power effective.
- Article XX permits a home-rule municipality to condemn property “within or without” its boundaries for any lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose.
- The specific facilities and projects listed in article XX do not exhaust the purposes for which a home-rule municipality may exercise eminent domain.
- When the constitution grants home-rule power, the General Assembly may not withdraw or negate that power by statute; a conflicting statute is invalid to the extent of the conflict.
- Open space, parks, and recreation tied to municipal land-use objectives may constitute public, local, and municipal purposes supporting condemnation by a home-rule municipality.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that Telluride’s home-rule eminent-domain authority under article XX includes the power to condemn adjacent land outside town limits for open space, parks, and recreation, and it affirmed the trial court’s determination that § 38-1-101(4)(b) was unconstitutional because it conflicted with that constitutional grant.


Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corporation, 185 P.3d 161 (2008)