Bruce again suing Springs over fees

Anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce sued Colorado Springs again Tuesday, asking the 4th Judicial District Court to uphold the public’s right to petition city government.

The 21-page pleading asks the court to allow him to collect signatures to place a measure on the 2008 ballot that would overturn the city’s stormwater enterprise.

It’s Bruce’s second run at the issue.

The first, which covered enterprises and property taxes, was turned away in May by the city’s title-setting board, which ruled it failed the city’s and state’s singletopic rule.

In June, 4th Judicial District Judge Rebecca Bromley sided with the city.

Last week, Bruce submitted a new measure: “Shall an ordinance be adopted that allows enterprise charges for voluntary contracts only, phases out enterprise payments to the city and prohibits loans, gifts and subsidies by enterprises?”

The title board, composed of Municipal Judge Robert Briggle, Deputy City Clerk Cindy Conway and City Attorney Patricia Kelly, again cited the single-topic rule.

The board also said the measure fails to define several terms they didn’t understand, such as “voluntary,” “contracts” and “enterprise.”

In his latest lawsuit, Bruce notes that citizens have a constitutional right to petition, to free speech, to due process and equal protection.

“All those rights have been trashed by defendant,” he wrote.

He called the title-setting hearing “a pre-arranged sham” where the three officials stated their decision before hearing Bruce’s arguments.

Bruce’s measure deals with enterprises in general but targets the city’s newest venture, the stormwater enterprise, formed in 2005 and for which rates became effective in January.

The city’s other enterprises include golf courses, utilities, a hospital, an airport and cemeteries, and they operate on fees for service.

The stormwater enterprise collects fees, enacted by the City Council, from all property owners based on impervious surfaces.

It will collect about $15 million a year in fees to pay for a backlog of drainage projects.

Bruce’s lawsuit gets into several additional issues, such as whether the stormwater enterprise is legal under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which Bruce authored and voters approved in 1992.

That law defines enterprise as a government-owned business that cannot get money from taxes.

“No business can demand money of citizens involuntarily,” Bruce argues in the lawsuit. “A business is an entity that provides goods and services to willing customers only.”

If property owners don’t pay their stormwater bills, the city can file liens with the El Paso County treasurer.

“No business has the right to use such governmental powers, or eminent domain,” he said, which means stormwater isn’t really a business, but a government agency. The state constitution and the City Charter require the government to get permission from voters to impose taxes.

Bruce also argued that his measure is a legislative change in policy, not an administrative change out of the voters’ reach, as City Attorney Kelly argued.

In addition, his lawsuit takes on the single-topic law, asking the court to declare the City Council-enacted rule invalid. A state single-subject law, adopted by voters, applies only to statewide petitions, he said.

The city’s rule, Bruce said, “is obviously being used repeatedly to discriminate against petitions the city dislikes . . . Limiting the citizen petition and giving the city a veto power over petitions requires ‘the consent of the governed.’”

Bruce asked the court to promptly order the city to prepare petitions containing the ballot title so he can circulate them for the 2008 election.

To make this fall election, he would need to gather more than 25,000 signatures of registered city voters by late August, which Bruce admits he couldn’t do.

City Attorney Kelly did not return two phone calls seeking comment.