E.g., City and County of Denver v. Colorado River Water Conservation District, 696 P.2d 730, 740-41 (Colo. 1985); Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. City and County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 357-58 (Colo. 1983); DeLong, 195 Colo. at 31-32, 576 P.2d at 540; Woolverton v. City and County of Denver, 146 Colo. 247, 252-59, 361 P.2d 982, 984-98 (1961). The pivotal questions in this case, therefore, are: (1) whether the statutory scheme for the control of outdoor advertising signs located within a home-rule municipality along the roads of the state highway system is a matter of exclusively local or of exclusively statewide concern, or instead is a matter of mixed local and statewide concern; and (2) if the matter is of mixed local and statewide concern, whether the provisions of the Outdoor Advertising Act conflict with the sign code adopted by Colorado Springs.
In purely local and municipal matters, as contrasted with matters of statewide concern, the charter provisions and legislation of a home rule city such as Denver supersede conflicting state statutes. Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6; Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. City County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 357-58 (Colo. 1983); DeLong v. City County of Denver, 195 Colo. 27, 31, 576 P.2d 537, 539 (1978).
Even if a home rule city has considerable local interests at stake, a particular issue may be characterized as "mixed" if sufficient state interests also are implicated. See Denver Rio Grande W. R.R. Co. v. City County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo. 1983). In determining whether the state interest is sufficient to justify preemption of home rule authority, this Court has articulated various factors that drive the analysis.
We have considered the relative interests of the state and the home rule municipality in regulating the matter at issue in a particular case. See City County of Denver v. Board of County Comm'rs, 782 P.2d 753 (court compares interest of Denver in construction of water projects outside its boundaries with the interest of the state and of the counties in which the water projects are located); National Advertising, 751 P.2d 632 (court compares city's interest in controlling outdoor advertising signs within its municipal borders, i.e., safety, recreation, aesthetics, with state's interest in continued eligibility for federal highway funds threatened by inconsistent local regulations); Denver Rio Grande W. R.R. v. City County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354 (Colo. 1983) (court compares city's interest in construction of certain viaducts with the "paramount" interest of those living outside of Denver and holds that the construction of the viaducts was of mixed concern); City of Craig v. Public Util. Comm'n, 656 P.2d 1313 (Colo. 1983) (court finds that although city has interest in safety of railroad crossings, state's interest is predominant).
Id.; Denver Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. City and County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo. 1983). "The respective legislative bodies of a municipality and the state are the judges in the first instance of whether a matter is of local or statewide concern."
III. 38-39-103 Sant v. Stephens, 580 F. Supp. at 1005 See XX XX 6 Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 179 Colo. 335 344 500 P.2d 807 811 Accord Board of County Comm'rs v. City ofThornton, 629 P.2d 605 609 City of GreenwoodVillage v. Fleming, 643 P.2d 511 515 Pierce v.City and County of Denver, 193 Colo. 347 349 565 P.2d 1337 1338 DeLong v. City and County of Denver, 195 Colo. 27 31-32 576 P.2d 537 539-40 Accord Denver and RioGrande Western Railroad Co. v. City and County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354 358 Aurora v.Martin, 181 Colo. 72 75 507 P.2d 868 869-70 See alsoSeeTwogood v. Ocsay, 97 Colo. 300 49 P.2d 437 Seealso First National Bank of Southglenn v. Energy Fuels Corp., 200 Colo. at 543-44 618 P.2d at 1117 Dolan v.Flett, 41 Colo. App. 40 582 P.2d 694 IV.
Even a potential ripple effect may suffice. See Telluride, 3 P.3d at 38 (citing Denver & Rio Grande W.R.R. Co. v. City & County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 358–59 (Colo.1983)). Here, the Court finds that the operative result of the ordinance is to push sex offenders into neighboring cities. Apparently representatives of the City and County of Denver have already complained about Englewood's policy.
The test to determine whether a conflict exists is whether the home-rule city's ordinance scheme authorizes what the state legislation forbids, or forbids what the state legislation authorizes. Denver Rio Grande W. R.R. Co. v. City County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 361 n. 11 (Colo. 1983). We find that each of the challenged state statutory provisions conflicts with at least one of the cities' ordinances or charters.
Thus, our observations in Englewood are inapposite to this case. In Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. City County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 355-60 (Colo. 1983), we considered Denver's asserted power to construct and appropriate costs for a new railroad viaduct. In determining that the matter involved mixed local and state concerns, we emphasized that the General Assembly had enacted a statute concerning railroad safety, thus infusing the matter with state interests.
Instead, the determination must be made on an ad hoc basis, taking into consideration the facts of each case. Id. (citing Denver R.G.W. R.R. v. City County of Denver, 673 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo. 1983)). A critical factor in that consideration is the interest of the state in regulating the matter.