2011-08-11_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. See McClellan 900 P.2d at 34 (quoting Board of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146,151 (Colo. 1988)). II. The Board's Decision to Issue a Cease and Desist Order has a Reasonable Basis in Law and is Warranted by the Record. A) The Board reasonably interpreted the Act. The Board may issue a cease and desist order whenever it finds that a violation of the Act exists. The Act provides that the Board may issue a cease and desist order whenever it "determines that there exists any violation of any provisions of this article or of any notice, permit, or regulation issued or promulgated under the authority of this article ..." C.R.S. § 34- 32- 124(2) (2010). The Board's analysis in this case was simple. The Board reviewed the August Order, which identified several ongoing violations of the Act and prescribed corrective actions to remedy those violations. Cotter testified that it did not comply with two of the corrective actions. R:0252. ll. 12 -17. Therefore, the Board reasoned that continuing violations of the Act existed at the time of the November Hearing, and reasonably concluded that it could issue a cease and desist order to stop those violations. Cotter's arguments require the Court to interpret C.R.S. § 34 -32 -124 (hereinafter "section 124 "). When interpreting a statute, a court's primary task is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Henisse v. First Transit, Inc. 247 P.3d 577, 579 (Colo. 2011). The first step in a court's inquiry into legislative intent is an examination of the statute's plain language. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Healthsouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948, 951 (Colo. 2011). Courts do not consider statutory language in isolation, but consider the context of the terms at issue and construe them consistently with other terms in the statutory framework. See Id. Courts give effect 11