PERMFILE70660

• Permit No: M1993023
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Name: IN RE PETITION OF MOFFAT CNTY FOR DECLARATORY ORDER
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

a State Register Review Board for determination of a property's
historical significance. This procedure has not been complied with
on properties not listed or nominated.
"Properties," as used in the Act, is defined by Section
102(10) to mean "the resources, including buildings, structures,
objects, sites, districts, or areas, that are of historical
significance." (Emphasis added). Once again, "historical
significance" is a defined term and the procedure for determining
historical significance is set forth in Sections 105 through 107 of
the Act, and in the Society's Rules and Procedures. Only those
properties which have been determined by the Society to be of
"historical significance" can be deemed "properties" for purposes
of the Act. Until the procedure for determining "historical
significance" has been completed with respect to a particular
property, that property cannot be a "property" for purposes of the
Act.
Most revealing of the legislature's intent is the definition
of the term "review", found in 102(11) of the Act. One of the
Society's duties under Section 104 of the Act is to "review" the
proposed action with respect to its effect on a property.
"'Review' means the examination of information related to agency
actions in order to assess the effect of such actions on properties
listed in the State Register." (Emphasis added). Thus, the
Society's duty to review the effects of an agency action can only
apply to listed properties. There is no such thing, for purposes
of the Act, as a review of a property not listed in the State
Register.
The Society's interpretation of the Act (that the Act
authorizes the Society to review and comment upon agency actions
affecting properties which, although not listed or nominated, miaht
be of historical significance) simply ignores the definitions set
out in Section 102 of the Act, as discussed above. Ignoring
definitions of terms used in an Act is a cardinal sin of statutory
construction.
Moreover, a statute's title may be used as an aid in
construing an ambiguous statute. Martinez v. Continental
Enterprises, 730 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1986). The title of Section 104
of the Act, from which the Society claims authority to review
actions affecting non-listed property, is "Effect of state
register." Surely the legislature would not have given such a
title to Section 104 if it also dealt with properties not listed in
the State Register.
A statute must be considered as a whole, and isolated words
and expressions are not to be looked to. Public Utilities Comm'n v.
Stanton Transp. Co., 153 Colo. 372, 386 P.2d 590 (1963). The
Society's interpretation focuses on one word contained in Section
104 of the Act and ignores the remaining Sections of the Act. As
6