HomeMy WebLinkAbout740516 Y
Nu Ei tN
NE M
J. D. AREHART STATE OF COLORADO 1550 Lincoln Street. Room 210
Director cm DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Denver, Colorado 80203
WALTER J. TOMSIC "- 303-892-2156
De DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS ,ATE p_' F�`Z"----niqD
John F. TDmeic September 12, 1974 i CODUNrr p;. -0R p ss w,th C
Robert L. Eidetic'Wesley D. Let: of CoW�}Y �hoami55fo0eB Boar
Docile Gale I jFr' 1 b 1374
MEMORANDUM )j
Ley CDDNry CLERKAND RECORDER
TO: Junior College Districts and _" --------__Deputy
Boards of County Commissioners
in those counties affected
FROM: Walter J. Tomsic
SUBJECT: Inapplicability of 88-1 & 88-3 to
operations of Junior Colleges.
For some time there has been a misunderstanding that
Junior College Districts should file a copy of their bud-
gets with this office, as well as make application for
approval of increases in general property tax levies over
the 105% limitation allowed in 88-3-2.
Junior College Districts are clearly under the
jurisdiction and authority of Chapter 123, and are specifi-
cally excluded from the requirements of Chapter 88. There-
fore, the Division of Local Government will no longer
respond to requests for approval of property tax levies over
the limitation in 88-3-2, nor will we request copies of
Junior College budgets be filed in this office.
WL/jb
Enc. : Attorney General' s Opinion
740516
N.( 5 W E
NE N
ulxr 'totr of TolnrubU .
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
JOHN E. BUSH
JOHN P. MOORE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL 104 STATE CAPITOL
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
September 4, 1974
Mr. Walter J. Tomsic •
Division of Local Government
Department of Local Affairs
1550 Lincoln Street, Room 210 '
Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Mr. Tomsic:
This is in response to your request for an opinion as to whether the provisions
of Chapter 88 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, require the Division
of Local Government in the Department of Local Affairs to approve or disapprove
requests of junior college districts to increase their tax levies for the next
ensuing fiscal year to the extent that it would exceed the tax levy in the pre-
ceeding tax year plus five percent. You state that your office has been re-
ceiving thatsuch
thisrequests
procedure has been junior
incollege
effect for districts.
several years.
TO havealso been in-
To help resolve this question, I believe that a brief recital of legislative
history would be helpful . Prior to 1964, school districts along with junior
college districts were required to prepare, submit and adopt budgets pursuant
to the provisions of Article 1 , Chapter 88 of the Colorado Revised Statutes,
cited as The Local Government Budget Law of Colorado. Additionally, the pro-
visions of 88-3-1 , C.R.S. 1963, as amended, applied the so-called "105% limita-
tion" rule to "schools" . Junior college districts were also subject to the
"105% limitation" rule since the term "school" was interpreted as including
within its meaning the term "junior college district". At that time, 123-23-30
(1) of the Junior College Organization Act provided that "Each junior college
district . . . shall have and exercise all the powers, and perform all the duties
accorded to and required of public school districts. . ." while 123-23-1 has
always provided that junior colleges ". . . are hereby declared to be an integral
part of the public school system of the State of Colorado".
In 1964, the General Assembly amended The Local Government Budget Law of Colorado
by excluding school districts and junior college districts from its operation
Mr. Walter J. Tomsic 2 September 3, 1974
although the General Assembly did not amend 88-3-1 to exclude "schools" at that
time. At the same time, the General Assembly passed Article 32 of Chapter 123
of the Colorado Revised Statutes cited as The School District Budget Law of
1964 which provided the method by which school districts and junior college
districts prepared, submitted and adopted their budgets.
In 1969, the General Assembly amended the provisions of 88-3-1 by specifically
excluding "schools" from the applicability of the "105% limitation' rule. Be-
cause of this amendment, the provisions of 88-3-1 now apply only to " . . .counties,
cities and towns, and of the fire, sanitation, irrigation, drainage, conservancy,
and all other special districts . . ." . The General Assembly clearly intended to
exclude schools and thus junior college districts from the "105% limitation"
rule. Finally, in 1973, the General Assembly passed the Public School Finance
Act and provided in 123-44-7 for the establishment of a State School District
Budget Review Board with authority to increase the revenue base of a school
district in excess of its authorized revenue base as determined in the Act.
However, this Act does not apply to junior college districts.
In conclusion, it is my unofficial opinion that the provisions of 88-3-1 , C.R.S.
1963, as amended, do not apply to junior college districts.
Sincerely,
/2-
ohn . Bush
eputy Attorney General
EAS/JEB/sp
Hello