CO Code § 30-2-104 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 30 - Government - County|Article 2 - Compensation of County Officers|§ 30-2-104. Compensation of Deputies and Assistants

     The county clerk and recorders, county treasurers, county assessors, county coroners, and surveyors of the respective counties may appoint such deputies, assistants, and employees as shall be necessary at the compensation, payable at least once each month, as fixed by the officers with the approval of the boards of county commissioners of their respective counties. Except for those employees provided for pursuant to article 1 of title 26, C.R.S., boards of county commissioners may adopt a classification and compensation plan for all county employees paid in whole or in part by the county. The classification and compensation plan shall include workweek formulas of not less than forty hours designed to satisfy the varying requirements of each county service and county department as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (1). Upon acceptance by an elected official, the plan shall become binding upon the employees of that office. Changes in benefits, pay grades, and job classifications of employees shall thereafter be made in accordance with the plan.      Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, workweek formulas shall take into account the various services provided by the county, the operation of the various county departments, and the demands which such services and operations have in requiring employees to be on the job in a manner which is not in conformity with the basic forty-hour workweek which generally characterizes office work. (b) (I) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, workweek formulas shall take into account the various services provided by the county, the operation of the various county departments, and the demands which such services and operations have in requiring employees to be on the job in a manner which is not in conformity with the basic forty-hour workweek which generally characterizes office work.    Such workweek formulas may provide for work time in excess of forty hours during consecutive seven-day calendar periods. In such cases, computation of forty-hour pay periods may be based on an averaging formula covering more than such seven-day calendar period.    Authorized overtime work shall relate to such averaged workweeks where determined in the classification and compensation plan applicable to a described department or service.    All employees who work overtime pursuant to any classification and compensation plan shall receive overtime compensation, either in cash or in compensatory time.          In the event litigation is instituted relating to compensation or classification, the burden of proof shall be upon the plaintiff or the elected official instituting such action. Costs of any litigation instituted by an elected official shall be paid out of the county general fund.      History. Source: L. 45: P. 336, § 9. CSA: C. 66, § 58(9). CRS 53: § 56-2-10. C.R.S. 1963: § 56-2-10. L. 73: P. 629, § 1. L. 79: (1) amended, p. 1134, § 1, effective April 25. L. 81: (1)(a) amended, p. 1425, § 1, effective May 6. L. 84: (1)(a) amended, p. 582, § 3, effective March 19. L. 2003: (1)(a) amended, p. 806, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2006: (1)(a) amended, p. 449, § 3, effective August 7. History. Source: L. 45: P. 336, § 9. CSA: C. 66, § 58(9). CRS 53: § 56-2-10. C.R.S. 1963: § 56-2-10. L. 73: P. 629, § 1. L. 79: (1) amended, p. 1134, § 1, effective April 25. L. 81: (1)(a) amended, p. 1425, § 1, effective May 6. L. 84: (1)(a) amended, p. 582, § 3, effective March 19. L. 2003: (1)(a) amended, p. 806, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2006: (1)(a) amended, p. 449, § 3, effective August 7.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “The Fair Labor Standards Act: Criminal and Civil Liability”, see 14 Colo. Law. 1802 (1985).   Authority vested in board under phrase “with the approval of the board” does not give board unbridled power to change salaries fixed by treasurer. Kanaly v. Wadlow, 31 Colo. App. 193, 502 P.2d 83 (1972), modified, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   General assembly intended to divest board of exclusive power to fix salaries and to vest some meaningful power and authority in treasurer. Kanaly v. Wadlow, 31 Colo. App. 193, 502 P.2d 83 (1972), modified, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   But when the county treasurer and the board of county commissioners are unable to agree on prospective salaries for the treasurer's employees, the burden in a lawsuit brought to resolve the differences lies with the treasurer or the employee bringing the suit to show that the proposal of the treasurer is reasonable under the circumstances. Wadlow v. Kanaly, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   The board is vested with the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the fiscal affairs of the county. Wadlow v. Kanaly, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   And the commissioners are charged with the construction of an annual budget from submissions from the various departments of their anticipated financial needs for the ensuing year. Wadlow v. Kanaly, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   No authority in county department heads to set salaries. To hold that the heads of the various county departments had the authority to set salaries of their employees, not prescribed by statute, unless clearly exorbitant, would be to seriously compound the problems faced by the commissioners in adopting a balanced budget. Wadlow v. Kanaly, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   Board reviews salaries. It seems most consistent with the requirements of county government fiscal planning to allow the board to review salaries proposed by the heads of the various departments serving executive and administrative functions in the county. Wadlow v. Kanaly, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   Such an interpretation enables the commissioners to assure a reasonable budgetary process and develop a parity in salary levels throughout these various departments. Wadlow v. Kanaly, 182 Colo. 115 , 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   The power to appoint such assistants and employees as are necessary is vested in the county superintendent of schools, who may fix their compensation with the approval of the board of county commissioners. Schroeder v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 152 Colo. 313 , 381 P.2d 820 (1963).   No subsequent authority of board to cut off. Where the county superintendent determined that a clerical assistant was necessary and fixed compensation of such assistant with approval of board of county commissioners, the board was thereafter without unilateral power to diminish or cut off compensation of such assistant. Schroeder v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 152 Colo. 313 , 381 P.2d 820 (1963).   As board cannot substitute its judgment. By eliminating the salary of a clerical assistant the board of county commissioners eliminated the position, and, in effect, substituted its determination of the necessity for an assistant when that prerogative is vested by law in the duly elected county official. Schroeder v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 152 Colo. 313 , 381 P.2d 820 (1963).   Nor can court. A trial court in entering a finding determining that the assistant of the county superintendent of schools is not necessary invades the province of the executive branch of the government and is powerless to take such action. Schroeder v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 152 Colo. 313 , 381 P.2d 820 (1963).   Award of attorney fees to county sheriff was error because “elected county official” in subsection (2) is limited to those officials specifically enumerated in subsection (1). Johnson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 676 P.2d 1263 (Colo. App. 1984).   Section not applicable. The facts of this case do not bring it within the provisions for the payment of costs under this section. Sullivan v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 692 P.2d 1106 (Colo. 1984).   Applied in Beacom v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1983); Johnson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 676 P.2d 1263 (Colo. App. 1984).