CO Code § 20-1-301 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 20 - District Attorneys|Article 1 - District Attorneys|Part 3 - Compensation and Expenses|§ 20-1-301. Compensation of District Attorneys

      Commencing January 1, 1997, in every judicial district the district attorney shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of not less than sixty-seven thousand dollars per annum. (a) (I)Commencing January 1, 1997, in every judicial district the district attorney shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of not less than sixty-seven thousand dollars per annum.    Effective January 1, 2009, in every judicial district the district attorney shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of not less than one hundred thousand dollars per annum.    Effective January 1, 2010, in every judicial district the district attorney shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of not less than one hundred ten thousand dollars per annum.    Effective January 1, 2011, in every judicial district the district attorney shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of not less than one hundred twenty thousand dollars per annum.    Effective January 1, 2012, and for each year thereafter, in every judicial district the district attorney shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of not less than one hundred thirty thousand dollars per annum.       Any amount in excess of the compensation amount set pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) shall be set by the board or boards of county commissioners of the county or counties comprising the judicial district or the city council of the city and county of Denver for the second judicial district.    During the regular legislative session commencing January 2012, and every fourth legislative session thereafter, the judiciary committees of the house of representatives and the senate, or any successor committees, shall review the compensation of elected district attorneys and make recommendations, if appropriate, to the general assembly regarding the compensation of elected district attorneys.       A district attorney shall not engage in the private practice of law, nor shall he receive any income from any private law firm.     History. Source: L. 48, Ex. Sess.: P. 21, §§ 1, 2. CSA: C. 66, § 52(4). CRS 53: § 45-2-1. L. 55: P. 289, § 1. L. 59: Pp. 378, 380, §§ 1, 4. C.R.S. 1963: § 45-2-1. L. 67: Pp. 596, 599, §§ 1, 6. L. 72: P. 295, § 2. L. 75: (1) amended, p. 659, § 1, effective June 26. L. 76: (1) amended, p. 592, § 3, effective July 1. L. 80: (1) amended, p. 577, § 3, effective July 1. L. 84: (1) amended, p. 577, § 1, effective May 9. L. 95: (1) amended, p. 580, § 1, effective May 22. L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 194, § 12, effective August 4. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 1609, § 1, effective May 31. History. Source: L. 48, Ex. Sess.: P. 21, §§ 1, 2. CSA: C. 66, § 52(4). CRS 53: § 45-2-1. L. 55: P. 289, § 1. L. 59: Pp. 378, 380, §§ 1, 4. C.R.S. 1963: § 45-2-1. L. 67: Pp. 596, 599, §§ 1, 6. L. 72: P. 295, § 2. L. 75: (1) amended, p. 659, § 1, effective June 26. L. 76: (1) amended, p. 592, § 3, effective July 1. L. 80: (1) amended, p. 577, § 3, effective July 1. L. 84: (1) amended, p. 577, § 1, effective May 9. L. 95: (1) amended, p. 580, § 1, effective May 22. L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 194, § 12, effective August 4. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 1609, § 1, effective May 31.    ANNOTATION   Once salary ratified, county commissioners cannot reduce during term of office. By paying the plaintiff a certain sum of money, the county commissioners ratified an annual salary, and once they had ratified the salary paid at the commencement of the plaintiff's term of office, the county commissioners were without the power to reduce the salary during the plaintiff's four-year term. Tisdel v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 621 P.2d 1357 (Colo. 1980).   Trial court may review budgeting and taxing actions of board of county commissioners, but must give great deference to the board's discretionary acts. Decisions by the board in these areas may be nullified only where the trial court determines that the board abused their discretion by acting arbitrarily or unreasonably. Johns v. Miller, 42 Colo. App. 97, 594 P.2d 590 (1979).