HomeMy WebLinkAbout720475.tiff i1 r7 q:h
JOHN P. PROCTOR, C.P.A. ,'i+r` �"^a
State Auditor fi:00 '�41,� .
of COto
l e.I-%
WI 144' IG
.� 6:
1:76
OFFICE OF STATE AUDITOR r
IO 144 STATE CAPITOL SS.
COUNTY OF WELD
OEN VER, COLORADO 80209 piled with the Clerk of the Board
February 4, 1972 of County Commissioners
FEB 9 1972
Board of County Commissioners COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
Weld County e! Deputy
9th Street & 9th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Audits and Reports of
Weld County Hospital
Gentlemen:
As indicated by copies of correspondence previously furnished
to you, this office has been engaged in an exchange of corres-
pondence with Joseph Brough and Company, Certified Public
Accountants, of Greeley, Colorado, regarding the filing of
audit reports of the Weld County Hospital with the State
Auditor. Mr. Brough indicated that the Hospital had taken
the position that it was not subject to the provisions of
the Local Government Audit Law and for this reason has speci-
fically instructed the auditors not to file copies of reports
with the State Auditor.
Based on the questions raised by the auditors, the State
Auditor submitted this matter to the Attorney General and
received his Opinion No. 71-4638, dated December 3, 1971, a
copy of which is enclosed. As we interpret this opinion, it
clearly indicates that a county hospital established under
the provisions of CRS 1963, 66-7-1, must be included within
the county 's compliance with both the Local Government Audit
Law and the Local Government Budget Law "as a function of the
county government . " Copies of this opinion were furnished
the auditors, the Board of Trustees of the Hospital and the
County Attorney.
However, I have been advised verbally that the Hospital still
persists in the interpretation that it is not subject in any
way, either to the Audit Law or to the Budget Law . Further,
they suggest that we meet with them to resolve this matter.
I thereupon contacted the Deputy Attorney General of the State
�:o��s
N$0067
Board of County Commissioners Page Two
Weld County
February 4, 1972
of Colorado who confirmed my impression that the opinion of
the Attorney General was clear that the County had the re-
sponsibility to see that proper audits of "all activities, "
including the Weld County Hospital, were made and copies
filed with the State Auditor in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Local Government Audit Law.
This letter, therefore, constitutes a formal request and
demand upon the County and the Board of County Commissioners
that they proceed to fulfill the requirements of the Local
Government Audit Law by causing annual audits to be made of
the financial affairs and transactions of the activities of
the Weld County Hospital for the years ended December 31,
1970, and December 31, 1971.
If an audit report for the year ended December 31, 1970, is
not received in the State Auditor's Office by February 21,
1972, the State Auditor shall initiate the action required
of him by Section 88-6-7, CRS 1963, as amended, to cause such
audit to be made at the expense of the County.
I hope that this matter can be resolved amicably by the State
Auditor and the Board of County Commissioners so that no
formal actions under the statutes will be necessary.
Veri truly ygursy
u
JOHN P. PROCTOR, CPA
State Auditor
JPP/JVC/dw
Encl.
cc: Board of Trustees, Weld
County Hospital
Mr. Sam Telep, County Attorney
/--N T---.
i.,,
i Y�.�, i
-E._ �3,
ici
;, .
"71.-4638
NI<ly 71 E ..
•
linir Statr of_ Luiurahu
.
- DEPARTMENT OF LAW - •
DUKE W. DUNBAR OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN P. MOORE
ATTORNEY GENERAL 704 STATE CAPITOL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
. . .. DENVER, COLORADO 80203
December 3, . 1971 •
" V,�j...aC .
.._ . . J! 4
• 3 J2 i.• r i
111r. John P. Proctor, C.P.A. %TAM* AUDITCNT'5ORPM
State Auditor -a NV Z,,,ca„c�,C�J
144 State Capitol _
c . Denver, Colorado - _ - -
Dear Mr. Proctor: - -
This is in response to your request for my opinion on the
following:
- QUESTION: Is a county hospital, established pursuant to
' CRS 1965T-66-7-1, as amended, subject to the provisions of both
the Local Government Audit Law and the Local Government Budget
. •
CONCLUSION: The hospital, as an entity, is ;not 'subject to -.
' .either law, but as a .function of the county government the per-
tinent activities of the hospital must be included within the '
county's compliance with both laws .
ANALYSIS: By specific provision of CRS 1963,.. 88-1-2, as
amende-d, the Local Government Budget Law is made to apply "to
all subdivisions of - the -state which- have power- to appropriate-
. money or levy taxes, except home rule cities and cities and
counties, cities operating under a charter, school districts
and junior college districts." The Local Government Audit Law
' is made to apply to local . governments , which are defined by CRS
1963; 88-6-2, as amended, as a city and county, a city or town,
a school district, or junior college district, --a local' improve-
and service district, special district, or any other govern-
mental unit having the authority under the general laws of this
state to tax or impose assessments , including special assessments,
and any organization of political subdivisions of the state_sup-
ported in whole or in part by contributions received by its member
' political subdivisions .
A "public hospital" , otherwise known as a_ county hospital, -. ._.. -- L
may be established by the board of county commissioners .of any -
county having a population of three thousand or mote; in -accord
ance with the provisions of CRS 1963 , ;66-7-1, as. amended. In. :
Mr. John P. Proctor -2- December 3, 1971
order .to provide funds for the building or maintenance of the
hospital, the board of county commissioners 'has the authority to
levy a tax not to exceed three mills in each year. While the
hospital may be placed, by the county commissioners, under the
jurisdiction of a special hospital board of trustees, it is none-
theless clear that the public hospital is a function of the county
government, as the hospital exists principally for the benefit of
the sick inhabitants and those injured within the- county. See CRS
1963, 66-7-9 . Moreover, the purchasing, erecting, or enlarging of
buildings and equipment Tor the hospital becomes a . debt of the
county if approved by the electors, CRS 1963, 66-7-1(2) , as amended;
moneys received by the hospital are turned over to the county
treasurer, CRS 1963, 66-7-4(1) ; payments therefrom are on warrants
drawn on vouchers approved by the county commissioners, id. ; title
to the land upon which the hospital is built is' in the county, id. ;
the county commissioners have authority to appropriate up to five
per cent of the county general fund for improvement or enlargement
of a county hospital, CRS 1963, 66-7-8.
Thus , it is clear that a public hospital, established pursuant
to CRS 1963,66-7-1, as amended., does not fall within the definition
of a local government, as that term is defined in both 88-1-2, as
amended, and 88-6-2,: as amended, principally because the public
hospital is not a subdivision of the State of Colorado , nor does
it have power to levy taxes or special assessments. Indeed, .the
hospital is dependent upon the board of county. commissioners for
. any such levies.
Nevertheless, it is my opinion that a county hospital, estab-
lished pursuant to -66-7-1, as amended; is not immune to the general
application of either the Local Government Audit Law or the Local
- Government Budget Law. As an entity . and function of the county
government the applicable and necessary parts of the operation of
the county hospital must be included by the board of county com-
missioners in its compliance with both the Local Goverment Audit
Law and the vocal Government Budget Law. In short then, the
hospital is indirectly subject to both laws.
Very truly yours,
. DUKE W. DUNBAR
• Attorney General
• DWD: JPYt:T
li
Hello