PROJC01511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v - - Mr. Ioannides, P.C. July 8, 1986 Page Three added to the Colorado Constitution. Thereafter, the Colorado Legislature passed a set of statutes dealing with service authorities (see C.R.S. 32-7-101 et seq.), to implement the provisions of Art. XIV, Sec 17. Since-the amendments to Art. XI, Sec. 6 and the addition of Art. XIV, Sec 17, were both accomplished pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No.6 and the subsequent election, it would appear that the reference to "service authority" in Art. XI, Sec. 6 is a reference to the service authorities created by Art. XIV, Sec. 17 and C.R.S. 32-7-101 et seq. The District probably does not qualify as a "service authority" under Art. XIV, Sec. 17 and C.R.S. 32-7-101 ~ seq., and therefore, cannot utilize the "water supply exception" contained in Art. XI, Sec. 6. However, there is another reason why an election is not required in order for the District to enter into the Contract. In Heberer v. Board of County Commissioners, 88 Colo. 159, 293 P. 349 (1930), the Supreme Court interpreted a prior version of Art. XI, Sec. 6. In that case, the question was whether an election was needed before Chaffee County could enter into a twenty-five year lease, for a total rental of $201,000, for a county courthouse. The Supreme Court held that the lease did not create an "indebtedness," and therefore, no election was needed, saying: As the county does not own a courthouse or other suitable building, the only way in which it can furnish a place in which the business of the district court and the county can be transacted is by renting such a place. The rental provided for in the lease is to be paid monthly. Such expense is as much a necessary current expense of the county as rentals for light and water are current expenses of a city. If the monthly rentals, together with all other current expenses, are paid out of the current revenues, there is no indebtedness incurred for such expenses within the constitutional inhibition. This "current expense" doctrine has been embodied in the Water Conservancy Act, C.R.S. 37-45-101 et seq., under which the District was organized. C.R.S. 37-45-13g-requires that a contract be submitted to the voters for approval only when "the annual obligation created will require a greater annual expenditure than the annual income and revenue that [sic] the district is estimated to permit." The Board of Directors of the District, in approving the Contract, specifically found that the obligation created by the Contract would not require a greater annual expenditure than the District's income and revenue is