CO Code § 30-26-301 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 30 - Government - County|Article 26 - Bonds|Part 3 - Bonds - Buildings, Roads, Other|§ 30-26-301. Creation of Debt for Buildings, Roads - Election - Definitions

  When the board of county commissioners of any county deems it necessary to create an indebtedness for the purpose of erecting necessary public buildings, making or repairing public roads or bridges, developing, maintaining, and operating mass transportation systems, acquiring or building or acquiring and building airports and landing strips including the necessary land therefor and approaches thereto, by an order entered of record specifying the amount required and the object for which such debt is created, they shall submit the question to a vote at a general or special election. The general or special election provided for under this part 3 may be combined with the election on a proposal for a countywide sales tax, use tax, or both, provided for in article 2 of title 29, C.R.S. The board shall cause to be posted a notice of such order, which states, among other things, the maximum net effective interest rate at which such bonds may be issued, in some conspicuous place in each voting precinct in the county, for at least thirty days preceding the election, and all persons voting on that question shall vote by separate ballot whereon are placed the words ”for county indebtedness“ or ”against county indebtedness“, such ballots to be deposited in a box provided by the board of county commissioners for that purpose.      No county shall contract any debt by loan in any form unless the proposition to create such debt shall first be submitted to and approved by the registered qualified electors of the county.    If a majority of those electors of the county voting at such election vote in favor of the proposition to contract said debt, the board of county commissioners is authorized to contract said debt.    The board of county commissioners of any county shall submit to the registered qualified electors of the county the question of contracting a bonded indebtedness for any one or more of the purposes authorized by law. As used in this part 3, unless the context otherwise requires, ”registered qualified elector“ means a person who is legally qualified to register to vote in this state and in the county wherein his vote is offered and who has complied with the registration provisions of the ”Uniform Election Code of 1992“.    The order submitting the question of contracting an indebtedness shall contain a statement of the maximum net effective interest rate at which said indebtedness may be incurred. As used in articles 11, 15, and 17, parts 1, 3 to 6, and 8 of article 20, articles 25 and 26, and part 2 of article 28 of this title 30 and part 2 of article 6 of title 25, article 3 of title 29, part 5 of article 15 of this title 30, and article 5 of title 41, unless the context otherwise requires:   ”Net effective interest rate“ of a proposed issue of bonds means the net interest cost of said issue divided by the sum of the products derived by multiplying the principal amount of such issue maturing on each maturity date by the number of years from the date of said proposed bonds to their respective maturities.    ”Net interest cost“ of a proposed issue of bonds means the total amount of interest to accrue on said bonds from their date of issuance to their respective maturities, plus the amount of any discount below par or less the amount of any premium above par at which said bonds are being or have been sold. In all cases the net effective interest rate and net interest cost shall be computed without regard to any option of redemption prior to the designated maturity dates of the bonds.         The board of county commissioners of any county, having received approval at an election to issue bonds and having determined that the limitations of the original election question are too restrictive to permit the advantageous sale of the bonds so authorized, may submit at another general or special election either the question of issuing the bonds, or any portion thereof, at a higher maximum net effective interest rate than the maximum interest rate or maximum net effective interest rate approved at the original election, or the question of issuing the bonds, or any portion thereof, to mature over a longer period of time than the maximum period of maturity approved at the original election, or both such questions. (e) (I) The board of county commissioners of any county, having received approval at an election to issue bonds and having determined that the limitations of the original election question are too restrictive to permit the advantageous sale of the bonds so authorized, may submit at another general or special election either the question of issuing the bonds, or any portion thereof, at a higher maximum net effective interest rate than the maximum interest rate or maximum net effective interest rate approved at the original election, or the question of issuing the bonds, or any portion thereof, to mature over a longer period of time than the maximum period of maturity approved at the original election, or both such questions.    An election held pursuant to this paragraph (e) shall be held in substantially the same manner as an election to authorize bonds initially, except as may be required for the submission of the limited question or questions permitted under this paragraph (e).    If the changes submitted are not approved at an election held pursuant to this paragraph (e), such result shall not impair the authority of the board at a later time to issue the bonds originally approved within the limitations established at the first election.          If, upon canvassing the vote, which shall be canvassed in the same manner as the vote for county officers, it appears that a majority of all the votes cast are for county indebtedness, the board of county commissioners shall be authorized to contract the debt in the name of the county. The aggregate amount of indebtedness of any county shall not be in excess of three percent of the actual value, as determined by the assessor, of the taxable property in the county.     History. Source: G.L. § 448. G.S. § 671. R.S. 08: § 1364. C.L. § 8842. CSA: C. 45, § 194. L. 45: P. 296, § 3. CRS 53: § 36-6-1 . C.R.S. 1963: § 36-6-1 . L. 70: P. 137, §§ 3, 4. L. 71: Pp. 336, 337, §§ 1, 7. L. 73: Pp. 467, 469, §§ 3, 1. L. 79: (1), (2)(e)(I), and (3) amended, p. 1157, § 1, effective May 4. L. 80: (2)(c) amended, p. 414, § 20, effective January 1, 1981. L. 81: IP(2)(d) amended, p. 1614, § 13, effective June 19. L. 92: (2)(c) amended, p. 874, § 102, effective January 1, 1993. L. 2003: (3) amended, p. 655, § 1, effective March 20. L. 2017: IP(2)(d) amended,(SB 17-228), ch. 246, p. 1042, § 7, effective August 9.    Cross references:   For the manner of canvassing votes for county officers, see part 1 of article 10 of title 1; for the ”Uniform Election Code of 1992“, see articles 1 to 13 of title 1.   ANNOTATION   Constitutionality. Section 6 of art. XI, Colo. Const., providing that any county may contract a debt by loan by the issuance of bonds for the purpose of liquidating the indebtedness incurred prior to December 31, 1886, does not repeal by implication this section, or prevent counties from funding, under it, valid obligations incurred subsequent to said date, viz., December 31, 1886. Opinion of the Justices, 15 Colo. 421 , 24 P. 877 (1890).   Duty to evaluate vote and amount of indebtedness. This section entrusted the power and imposed the duty upon the commissioners to examine, to see and to decide whether or not a favorable vote had been taken, and whether or not the amount of the indebtedness exceeded the limitation, whenever they considered the question of issuing the bonds, and they could not discharge their duty in the issuance of these bonds without a consideration and determination of these questions. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Sutliff, 97 F. 270 (8th Cir. 1899).   ”Roads“ defined. To restrict the term ”roads“ to the definition of that term under the conditions of the time, and which had acceptance in the year 1876, when the constitution was adopted, would be most unreasonable, the word has a much broader meaning and may be said to include ”overland ways of every character“ even though not then envisioned by the framers of the constitution, and the airports of this nation are links in the transportation system, hence runways and landing strips, being a necessary unit of that system, need no longer be regarded as unique or peculiar, hence, they are as logically within the term ”roads“ as are automobile highways, and the statute authorizing such a bond issue is not unconstitutional. Hale v. Sullivan, 146 Colo. 512 , 362 P.2d 402 (1961).