My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00073
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00073
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:05 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:34:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153583
Contractor Name
Ute Water Conservancy District
Water District
0
Bill Number
XB 99-999
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Frank M. Akers <br />September 18, 1990 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />Article XIV, and Section 17 and C.R.S. 32-7-101 et sea. The <br />District probably does not qualify as a "service authority" under <br />Article XIV, Section 17 and C.R.S. 32-7-101 et sea., and therefore, <br />cannot utilize the "water supply exception" contained in Article <br />XI, Section 6. <br /> <br />However, there is another reason why an election is not <br />required in order for the District to enter into the Contract. In <br />Heberer v. Board of County Commissioners, 88 Colo. 159, 293 P. 349 <br />(1930), the Supreme Court interpreted a prior version of Article <br />XI, Section 6. In that case, the question was whether an election <br />was needed before Chaffee County could enter into a twenty-five <br />year lease, for a total rental of $201,000, for a county <br />courthouse. The Supreme Court held that the lease did not create <br />an "indebtedness", and therefore, no election was needed, saying: <br /> <br />As the county does not own a courthouse or other <br />suitable building, the only way in which it can <br />furnish a place in which the business of the <br />district court and the county can be transacted is <br />by renting such a place. The rental provided for <br />in the lease is to be paid monthly. Such expense <br />is as much a necessary current expense of the <br />county as rentals for light and water are current <br />expenses of a city. If the monthly rentals, <br />together with all other current expenses, are paid <br />out of the current revenues, there is no <br />indebtedness incurred for such expenses within the <br />constitution inhibition. <br /> <br />This "current expense" doctrine has been embodied in the <br />Water Conservancy Act, C.R.S. 37-45-101 et sea., under which the <br />District was organized. C.R.S. 37-45-139 requires that a contract <br />be submitted to the voters for approval only when "the annual <br />obligation created will require a greater annual expenditure than <br />the annual income and revenue that (sic) the district is estimated <br />to permit". The Board of Directors of the District, in approving <br />the Contract, specifically found that the obligation created by the <br />Contract would not require a greater annual expenditure than the <br />District I s income and revenue is expected to permit. Therefore, no <br />"indebtedness" is created for purposes of Article XI, Section 6 of <br />the Constitution, and no election is required pursuant to Article <br />XI, Section 6 and C.R.S. 37-45-139. The Contract thus can be <br />entered into by the District upon approval of the Board of <br />Directors of the District, without an election, pursuant to the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.