CO Code § 30-25-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 30 - Government - County|Article 25 - Administration|Part 1 - Fiscal Procedures|§ 30-25-101. Budgeting - Appropriations - Fiscal Procedures

 The provisions of part 1 of article 1 of title 29, C.R.S., shall govern budgeting, appropriations, and fiscal procedures of each county in this state.   History. Source: L. 1891: P. 111, § 1. R.S. 08: § 1215. C.L. § 8692. CSA: C. 45, § 39. CRS 53: § 36-2-1 . C.R.S. 1963: § 36-2-1 . L. 77: Entire section R&RE, p. 1441, § 2, effective June 9.    ANNOTATION   The intent of the former section was concisely stated in the title, as ”An act to require the affairs of the counties of this state to be conducted from the revenues derived from taxation, and to prevent the expenses of any county from exceeding its revenues“, and it must be accepted and enforced as it read, as the courts have no right to add to or take from its plain and positive provisions. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Hampson, 24 Colo. 127 , 48 P. 1101 (1897).   And the evident purpose of that section was to compel the board in the last quarter of the fiscal year to consider and decide with great care the levy which should be made and the objects to which the moneys which might be realized from it should be put, in other words, the general assembly intended to compel the board of county commissioners to particularize the purposes to which the moneys should be applied, and by this means all subsequent diversion of the public funds to illegal uses because of personal, political, or other considerations, was substantially prevented. Beshoar v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 7 Colo. App. 444, 43 P. 912 (1896).   A record is not always required to render the proceedings of the board of county commissioners binding. Mugrage v. People, 26 Colo. App. 27, 141 P. 522 (1914).   And where question arises as to a board's action a liberal discretion should be exercised in receiving evidence of the attending circumstances, to aid in ascertaining the real purpose of what is set down. Mugrage v. People, 26 Colo. App. 27, 141 P. 522 (1914).   Duty directory. Under the former section, it was the duty of the board to make the levy so that the assessor could certify the tax list and warrant to the treasurer on or before the first of January, but a failure of the commissioners, or the assessor, to do either within the time specified, in no manner affected the taxpayer and was directory. Tallon v. Vindicator Consol. Gold Mining Co., 59 Colo. 316 , 149 P. 108 (1915).   Treasurer not responsible for omissions of board. Where the only resolution of the board which could be termed an appropriation, directed levies upon the taxable property, as follows: ”For State Purposes, 4 mills; for County Redemption Fund, 5 mills; for County General Revenue, 10 mills; for Road Fund, 4 mills; for General School Fund, 4 mills -- the same to be extended on the tax roll by the county assessor, and by him certified to the county treasurer for collection.“, it was held that warrants regularly issued for unquestioned obligations of the county, and paid by the treasurer were to be credited to him in his account, in spite of the absence of any formal appropriation resolution, such as required by the former section, and that the treasurer shall not be penalized for the omissions of the governing body of the county. Mugrage v. People, 26 Colo. App. 27, 141 P. 522 (1914).   The holder of a valid warrant issued by a city for current expenses of a fiscal year is entitled to be paid out of the revenues of that year, appropriated for that purpose, because this is a part of the contract by virtue of the former section, and to hold that his rights thus fixed would be subject to the payment of warrants issued in previous years would impair the obligation of his contract. Ostling v. People ex rel. Bantley, 57 Colo. 22 , 140 P. 173 (1914).   Applied in Beacom v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1983).