CO Code § 29-1-110 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 29 - Government - Local|Article 1 - Budget and Services|Part 1 - Local Government Budget Law Ofcolorado|§ 29-1-110. Expenditures Not to Exceed Appropriation

  During the fiscal year, no officer, employee, or other spending agency shall expend or contract to expend any money, or incur any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the expenditures of money in excess of the amounts appropriated. Any contract, verbal or written, made in violation of this section shall be void, and no moneys belonging to a local government shall be paid on such contract.    Multiple-year contracts may be entered into where allowed by law or if subject to annual appropriation.     History. Source: L. 90: Entire part R&RE, p. 1434, § 1, effective January 1, 1991.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 29-1-113 as it existed prior to 1990.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Indemnity Clauses in Local Government Contracts”, see 43 Colo. Law. 53 (Dec. 2014).   Annotator's note. Since § 29-1-110 is similar to § 29-1-113 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of this part 1, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   The purposes of this section are to protect the taxpayer against improvident use of tax revenue, to encourage citizen participation and debate prior to the institution of public projects, to insure public disclosure of proposed spending, and to encourage prudence and thrift by those elected to direct expenditures of public funds. Shannon Water & San. Dist. v. Norris & Sons Drilling Co., 29 Colo. App. 48, 477 P.2d 476 (1970).   Effect of no appropriation. Since there is an absolute prohibition against spending in excess of an appropriation, there can be no sum spent when there is no appropriation. Shannon Water & San. Dist. v. Norris & Sons Drilling Co., 29 Colo. App. 48, 477 P.2d 476 (1970).   Specific project allocations not deemed appropriations. A contractor was allowed to collect for change orders over and above his original bid because the appropriation ordinance to the sewer fund by the town board prevailed over later specific allocations to projects by town officials which were not deemed appropriations. R.L. Atkins, Inc. v. ARIX, 675 P.2d 336 (Colo. App. 1983).   Required formalities. This section requires that certain formalities, such as public hearings and formal adoption of budgets, be complied with before public funds can be spent. Shannon Water & San. Dist. v. Norris & Sons Drilling Co., 29 Colo. App. 48, 477 P.2d 476 (1970).   Contract void under this section. Contract requiring a metropolitan district developing a residential subdivision to pay a monthly per resident fee for the provision of cable and internet services until a specified number of homes in the subdivision were occupied was void under this section because it required payment of fees that could exceed annual appropriations. This section applies to every fiscal year of a contract's existence, not only the year in which the contract is executed. Falcon Broadband v. Banning Lewis Ranch, 2018 COA 92 , 474 P.3d 1231.   Recovery in specie where property furnished under unenforceable contract. Where property is furnished to a municipal corporation under an unenforceable contract and the municipality has not paid for the property, then the seller or person supplying the property may, upon equitable terms, recover it in specie. F.J. Kent Corp. v. Town of Dillon, 648 P.2d 669 (Colo. App. 1982).   But no recovery where property no longer in existence. There can be no recovery where the property is no longer in existence or identifiable, or where it cannot be restored to the plaintiff without serious damage to other property of the municipality. F.J. Kent Corp. v. Town of Dillon, 648 P.2d 669 (Colo. App. 1982).   Representations sheriff made to his deputies and clerks regarding cash compensation for overtime were made without approval of the board and, thus, are not binding on the county or the board. Johnson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 676 P.2d 1263 (Colo. App. 1984).   This section does not prohibit an award of attorney's fees pursuant to a remedy-granting provision in a contract between a municipality and a construction company. When a good faith dispute arises between a public entity and a contractor concerning the contractor's right to receive additional compensation under a remedy-granting provision of a public works contract, § 24-91-103.6 (4) precludes the use of the defense authorized by this section that no moneys have been appropriated as long as the contractor has complied with the provisions of the contract. Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000).   Applied in City of Englewood v. Ripple & Howe, Inc., 150 Colo. 434 , 374 P.2d 360 (1962); People v. Losavio, 199 Colo. 212 , 606 P.2d 856 (1980); Gude v. City of Lakewood, 636 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1981); Groditsky v. Pinckney, 661 P.2d 279 (Colo. 1983); Thyssenkrupp Safway v. Hyland Hills Parks, 271 P.3d 587 (Colo. App. 2011).