Laserfiche WebLink
1086, 1091 (Colo. 1990); Board of Assessment Appeals of State of Colo. v. Colo. <br /> Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146, 150 (Colo. 1988). An agency's findings need not be <br /> specific as long as they "apprise the parties and the reviewing court of the basis for <br /> its decision." Moya v. Colo. Ltd. Gaming Control Comm'n, 870 P.2d 620, 624 <br /> (Colo. App. 1994). The absence of express findings is not fatal to a decision <br /> provided there is evidence in the record that supports its decision. Burns v. Bd. of <br /> Assessment Appeals of State of Colo., 820 P.2d 1175, 1177 (Colo. App. 1991). <br /> When a party challenges an agency's ultimate conclusion of fact, the court <br /> must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the <br /> conclusion. Koinis v. Colo. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 97 P.3d 193, 195 (2003). <br /> Substantial evidence is "evidence that would warrant a reasonable belief in the <br /> existence of facts supporting a particular finding, without regard to the existence of <br /> contradictory testimony." Ward v. Dep't of Natural Res., 216 P.3d 84, 94 (Colo. <br /> App. 2008). When reviewing an administrative action, substantial evidence is the <br /> same as competent evidence. United Fin. Credit v. Colorado Collection Agency <br /> Bd., 892 P.2d 446, 448-49 (Colo. App. 1995). A record only lacks competent <br /> evidence when the record is "devoid of evidentiary support." Widder v. Durango <br /> Sch. Dist. 9-R, 85 P.3d 518, 526-27 (2004). <br /> B. Transit Mix's Application was incomplete because it failed <br /> to demonstrate that it received the legal right to enter and <br /> initiate a mining operation on Little Turkey Creek Road. <br /> 11 <br />