CO Code § 29-1-302 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 29 - Government - Local|Article 1 - Budget and Services|Part 3 - Annual Levy - Increase or Reduction - Limitation|§ 29-1-302. Increased Levy - Submitted to People at Election

  If the board of any special district authorized to levy a tax or any officer charged with the duty of levying a tax in any special district is of the opinion that the amount of tax limited by section 29-1-301 will be insufficient for the needs of such special district for the current year, the question of an increased levy may be submitted to the division of local government in the department of local affairs, and it is the duty of said division to consider the public awareness of the question, the public support therefor, and the public objection thereto and to examine the needs of such special district and ascertain from such examination the financial condition thereof, and, if in the opinion of the division such special district is in need of additional funds, the said division may grant an increased levy for such special district above the limits specified in this part 3, and such special district is authorized to make such excess levy. The division of local government shall not under any circumstance grant an increased levy based upon increased valuation for assessment purposes from reappraisals. As used in this section, “special district” means any district organized pursuant to law, except school districts operating pursuant to title 22, C.R.S., which is authorized to levy an ad valorem tax on property within its boundaries, and the term includes, but is not limited to, districts organized under article 20 of title 30, C.R.S., articles 25 and 35 of title 31, C.R.S., and titles 32 and 37, C.R.S. (1.5)   The general assembly recognizes the need for periodic increased levies in order to finance capital projects and purchases of capital assets which are a one-time, nonrecurring expenditure. It is the intent of the general assembly that the division of local government may grant an increased levy for such expenditures if, in its opinion, a special district, to which section 29-1-301 (1.2)(a) does not apply, is in need of additional funds for such expenditures. Any increased levy granted by the division of local government in a given year which is designated by it as a capital expenditure shall not be included in determining the limitation in the following year. If the division is of the opinion that such additional funds will be needed for two or more years after reviewing the long-range plan of the special district concerning the expenditure of such funds, it may grant an increased levy, and such increased levy shall automatically be allowed for each year during which such additional funds will be needed. During such years, the increased levy for each year shall not be included in determining the limitation in the following year.    Repealed.         In case the division of local government, after consideration of the public awareness of the question, the public support therefor, and the public objection thereto, refuses or fails within ten days after submission to it of an adopted budget to grant an increased levy to a special district pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section, the question may be submitted to the qualified electors of said district at a general or special election called for the purpose and in the manner provided by law for calling special elections in such special district.    Any taxing entity to which section 29-1-301 (1) applies may, at its discretion, submit the question of an increased levy directly to an election of the qualified electors without first submitting the question of an increased levy to the division of local government.    Any city or town having a population of two thousand or less, based upon the latest estimates of the department of local affairs, may utilize the provisions of subsections (1), (1.5), and (2)(a) of this section.       Due notice of submission of the question of whether to grant the increased levy shall be given as required by articles 1 to 13 of title 1, C.R.S. If a majority of the votes cast at any such election is in favor of the increased levy, then the officers charged with levying taxes may make such increased levy for the year or years voted upon.    to (6) Repealed.     History. Source: L. 13: P. 560, § 12. C.L. § 7216. CSA: C. 142, § 41. L. 52: P. 142, § 2. CRS 53: § 36-3-5 . L. 55: P. 253, § 2. C.R.S. 1963: § 88-3-2. L. 69: P. 1053, § 25. L. 70: P. 378, § 4. L. 71: P. 957, § 2. L. 72: P. 611, § 127. L. 76: (1) and (2) amended, p. 685, § 2, effective July 1. L. 77: (3) added, p. 1748, § 21, effective January 1, 1978. L. 81: (1) amended, p. 1388, § 1, effective May 27; (1.5) added, p. 1397, § 6, effective June 19; (6) added, p. 1390, § 1, effective June 19. L. 83: (1.5) amended, p. 1203, § 1, effective April 29; (1.5) R&RE, p. 1201, § 3, effective May 25; (1) amended, p. 2072, § 1, effective October 13. L. 85: (1.5)(b) and (3) amended, p. 1025, § 2, effective May 22; (4) repealed, p. 1363, § 26, effective June 28. L. 86: (1), (1.5)(a), and (2) amended and (1.5)(b), (5), and (6) repealed, pp. 1024, 1027, §§ 4, 8, effective January 1, 1987. L. 87: (3) amended, p. 1181, § 3, effective April 30; (3) amended, p. 1185, § 2, effective May 1. L. 94: (3) amended, p. 1187, § 82, effective July 1. L. 2020: (2)(c) amended,(SB 20-136), ch. 70, p. 296, § 44, effective September 14. History. Source: L. 13: P. 560, § 12. C.L. § 7216. CSA: C. 142, § 41. L. 52: P. 142, § 2. CRS 53: § 36-3-5 . L. 55: P. 253, § 2. C.R.S. 1963: § 88-3-2. L. 69: P. 1053, § 25. L. 70: P. 378, § 4. L. 71: P. 957, § 2. L. 72: P. 611, § 127. L. 76: (1) and (2) amended, p. 685, § 2, effective July 1. L. 77: (3) added, p. 1748, § 21, effective January 1, 1978. L. 81: (1) amended, p. 1388, § 1, effective May 27; (1.5) added, p. 1397, § 6, effective June 19; (6) added, p. 1390, § 1, effective June 19. L. 83: (1.5) amended, p. 1203, § 1, effective April 29; (1.5) R&RE, p. 1201, § 3, effective May 25; (1) amended, p. 2072, § 1, effective October 13. L. 85: (1.5)(b) and (3) amended, p. 1025, § 2, effective May 22; (4) repealed, p. 1363, § 26, effective June 28. L. 86: (1), (1.5)(a), and (2) amended and (1.5)(b), (5), and (6) repealed, pp. 1024, 1027, §§ 4, 8, effective January 1, 1987. L. 87: (3) amended, p. 1181, § 3, effective April 30; (3) amended, p. 1185, § 2, effective May 1. L. 94: (3) amended, p. 1187, § 82, effective July 1. L. 2020: (2)(c) amended,(SB 20-136), ch. 70, p. 296, § 44, effective September 14.    Editor's note:    Amendments to subsection (3) by House Bill 87-1011 and House Bill 87-1012 were harmonized.    The internal reference in subsection (2)(c) to § 29-1-303 refers to that section as it existed prior to its repeal on January 1, 1990.     Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in SB 20-136, see section 1 of chapter 70, Session Laws of Colorado 2020.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Property Tax Assessments in Colorado”, see 12 Colo. Law. 563 (1983).   This section is not opposed to § 7 of art. X, Colo. Const. This provision of the fundamental law has not the effect of prohibiting legislation to limit the tax which may be imposed for county purposes. Tallon v. Vindicator Consol., Gold Mining Co., 59 Colo. 316 , 149 P. 108 (1915).   Notice requirements for special elections should be construed more strictly than for general elections. Stegon v. Pueblo W. Metro. Dist., 198 Colo. 128 , 596 P.2d 1206 (1979).   Statutory language requiring 30 days notice is mandatory and should be strictly construed. Stegon v. Pueblo W. Metro. Dist., 198 Colo. 128 , 596 P.2d 1206 (1979).   County not required to lower existing mill levy where voters had approved ballot question to allow the county to keep all property tax revenues generated by its existing mill levy. Approval of the ballot question exempted the county from the five and one half percent revenue limitation of § 29-1-301 (1) even though the ballot question did not specifically refer to that limitation. Wilber v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of La Plata, 42 P.3d 49 (Colo. App. 2001).   Excess mill levy was illegal under subsection (1) of this section and §§ 32-1-202 and 32-1-204 . Subsection (1) delineates a procedure to increase mill levies beyond the service plan limit. This provision further contemplates the enforceability of mill levy caps by requiring a specific procedure to exceed those limits. Exceeding the cap, therefore, is otherwise not permissible. Prospect 34, LLC v. Gunnison County Bd., 2015 COA 160 , 363 P.3d 819.   Applied in Colo. & S. Ry. v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 70 Colo. 8 , 196 P. 331 (1921).