Laserfiche WebLink
stipulation set forth the applicable law related to what constitutes the administrative hearing <br />record subject to court review in this matter as follows: <br />"This matter is subject to the requirements of the Administrative <br />Procedure Act ( "APA "), section 24 -4 -106, C.R.S and the Colorado <br />Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act ( "SCMRA "), section 34 -33 -128 <br />C.R.S." <br />2. The parties stipulated that the scope of the designation of the administrative <br />record would be controlled by the unambiguous language of the APA and SCMRA. <br />However, Plaintiffs' designation of administrative appeal record index (Exhibit A to <br />Plaintiffs' brief) and Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' brief fail to comply with the APA and <br />SCMRA. Therefore, Defendants request that, based on the arguments presented below, the <br />court: 1) strike Plaintiffs' designation of record in its entirety' and 2) approve Defendants' <br />proposed designation of record provided as Attachment A. <br />3. The APA sets forth what is to be included in an administrative record subject <br />to judicial review. Under the APA, the administrative record consists of "the original or <br />certified copies of all pleadings, applications, evidence, exhibits, and other papers presented <br />to or considered by the agency, rulings upon exceptions, and the decision, findings, and <br />action of the agency." (Emphasis added). APA Section 24- 4- 106(6), C.R.S. (2011). In this <br />instance the "agency" taking the final agency action subject to judicial review is the Board, <br />not the Division. <br />4. The purpose of judicial review is for a reviewing court to affirm or deny an <br />agency's action based solely on the hearing record made before that agency. Therefore, <br />under the APA, judicial review is necessarily limited to the administrative record that was <br />presented to and considered by the Board when it took action. § 24 -4- 106(6), C.R.S. See, <br />e.g., Colo. Ground Water Comm'n. v Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd., 919 P.2d 212, 216 (Colo. <br />1996) ( "APA review of agency action, whether quasi - legislative or quasi-judicial, is based <br />upon the agency record "); Citizens for Free Enter. v. Dep't of Revenue, 649 P.2d 1054, 1062 <br />(Colo. 1982) ( "Rather than engaging in a de novo inquiry ... the court is directed to the <br />administratively compiled record "); Brighton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Colorado State Pharmacy <br />Board, 160 P.3d 412, 417 (Colo. App. 2007) ( "Agency actions are to be reviewed based <br />solely on the record before the agency "); Stream v. Heckers, 184 Colo. 149, 519, P. 2d 336 <br />(1974)( "Review by district court is limited to the record compiled by the agency "); Board of <br />County Commis v. Simmons, 177 Colo. 347, 494 P.2d 85 (1972)( "In proceedings reviewing <br />an administrative action, the trial court is confined to a review of the record of hearing before <br />the agency "). <br />1 Plaintiffs' designation of record index is a 21 page un- numbered, itemized list. The majority of this index proposes <br />to designate numerous documents wholly unrelated to PR -06 as well as documents related to PR -06 but never <br />presented to or considered by the Board at the November 17, 2010 hearing. It is a difficult task to produce an item - <br />by -item objection to this list, and even if such an objection was produced, it would potentially be confusing and <br />unclear to the parties and the court. Therefore, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' entire designation be rejected. <br />2 <br />