2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

833 P.2d 864 (Colo. App. 1992). The party challenging an administrative agency's action bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the agency's acts were proper. § 24 -4- 105(7); Lieb v. Trimble, 183 P.3d 702 (Colo. App. 2008). On appeal, the Court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the agency decision. § 24- 4- 106(7); Lawley v. Dept of Higher Educ., 36 P.3d 1239, 1252 (Colo. 2001). In reviewing an administrative board's decisions, the Colorado Supreme Court has "emphasized two key principles: (1) that all reasonable doubts as to the correctness of the administrative body's ruling must be resolved in its favor; and (2) that, unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the administrative determination will not be disturbed." Id. at 1252. The Board, not the reviewing court, is the trier of fact. Bodaghi v. Dept of Natural Res., 995 P.2d 288, 303 (Colo. 2000); Colo. Ethics Watch v. City & County of Broomfield, 203 P.3d 623, 626 (Colo. App. 2009). Weighing the evidence and resolving any conflicts, and the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are within the agency's province. Id. Where the record supports the agency's findings a reviewing court may not reweigh evidence received by an agency, but must defer to the agency's findings and determinations. See, e.g., Metro Moving & Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo. App. 1995). A reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency, even when evidence is conflicting. Bodaghi, 995 P.2d at 303; Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146, 151 (Colo. 1988); Colo. Ethics Watch, 203 P.3d at 626. The issue is the rationality of the decision - making process, not the decision itself. Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Salazar, 875 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1244 (D. Colo. 2012). Where an agency's exercise of discretion is truly informed, the agency is entitled to a great deal of deference. Id. 11