## Facts

- Canon City received federal land in 1906 to be used exclusively for park purposes, including the Royal Gorge area.
- The City leased part of the park in 1929 for construction and operation of a suspension bridge; the lease was later acquired by the Royal Gorge Company.
- After elections reflecting voter preference that the City not operate the bridge directly, the City and the Company executed a new lease in 1967.
- From 1967 through 1981, the parties executed multiple lease amendments, including an extension through October 31, 2001; none were submitted to voters.
- In 1982, the City determined major modernization was necessary to extend the bridge’s useful life and negotiated the City’s role in financing improvements.
- A 1983 “eighth amendment” required the Company to complete modernization and allowed it to retain increased toll and concession revenues until it recouped 62% of modernization costs.
- The City council concluded the amendment was not subject to referendum and did not submit it to the electorate.
- City residents and electors sued, claiming (1) a referendum right and (2) constitutional violations involving municipal debt or lending of credit to a private corporation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City and the Company; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the eighth lease amendment was a legislative measure subject to referendum, or an administrative action exempt from referendum under the Colorado Constitution and the City charter.
2. Whether the amendment created unconstitutional municipal debt or an unconstitutional lending/pledge of municipal credit under Colo. Const. art. XI, §§ 1–2.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment.
- The eighth amendment was administrative in character and therefore not subject to referendum.
- The amendment did not create a municipal “debt” within the meaning of art. XI, § 2 because it did not obligate general revenues or taxing power.
- The amendment did not constitute a lending or pledge of municipal credit under art. XI, § 1 because the City did not guarantee the Company’s obligations or financing.

## Legal Principles

- The referendum power applies to legislative municipal actions, not to administrative or executive actions implementing existing policy.
- A contract modification that manages the details of an ongoing municipal lease and implements a previously chosen operational policy is generally administrative, not legislative.
- A municipality does not incur constitutional “debt” under Colo. Const. art. XI, § 2 when it does not promise payment from general funds or pledge taxing power.
- Adjusting allocation of project-generated revenues (e.g., toll and concession receipts) to support private financing, without a municipal guarantee, does not amount to a pledge or lending of credit under Colo. Const. art. XI, § 1.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Canon City’s lease amendment as an administrative implementation of an existing lease policy, exempt from referendum, and as a revenue-based arrangement that neither obligated the City’s general revenues nor pledged its credit in violation of Colorado’s constitutional debt and credit limits.


Witcher v. Canon City, 716 P.2d 445 (Colo. 1986)