HomeMy WebLinkAbout710538.tiff JOHN P. PROCTOR, C.P,A. a* . to n
State Auditor 310 )r
:± . .���"' OF Lot m+*
/P4. .�•-0-� o'p97
Cif OI.
•
•
7876
OFFICE OF STATE AUDITOR
144 STATE CAPITOL
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
December 7, 1971
Be: #3029 - Weld County
General Hospital
Mr. Joseph W. Brought Jr. , CPA
Joseph Brough and Cospany
Certified Public Accountants
First National Bank Building
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Brough:
In our letter of November 30, 1971, wherein we advised you
that we were asking the opinion of the Attorney General as
to the applicability of the Local Government Budget Law
and the Local Goverment Audit Law to Weld County Hospital,
we stated that we would let you know immediately upon re-
ceipt of the opinion of the Attorney General.
We have received the formal opinion of the Attorney General
which indicates that "the hospital is indirectly subject to
both laws", namely, the Local Government Audit Law and the
Local Government Budget Law. A copy of this opinion is en-
closed herewith.
We would appreciate it, therefore, if reports of the audits
of the Weld County General Hospital would be sent
ous
in
a timely manner in accordance with the filing requirements
of the Audit Law.
V/1Cy truly yours,
11 i
;"c' Qa
nJ
;James Y. Tinsley, A
JMT/JVC/dw Deputy State Auditor
cc: Board of County Commissioners NS� 0 7
Board of Trustees, Weld County
General Hospital
Mr. Sam Telep, County Attorney
710538
„4.
71-4633
C.;lie TRIP' of Tri ilrahu
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
DUKE W. DUNBAR OFFICE OF THC ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN P. MOORE
ATTORNEY GENERAL 104 STATE CAPITOL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 D rc
December 3 , 1971 " ti s
•
ci
Mr. John P. Proctor, C.P.A. :'STATE AUDITOR'SCEW
State Auditor # -CLEVE v �Y_._ x, 4
144 icy
net
State Capitol y--�:r..����,,,�+e.wwF
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 1963 , 66-7-1, as amended, subject to the provisions of both
the Local Government Audit Law and the Local Government Budget
Law?
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
amended, 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-
ment 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 ,
may be established by the board of county commissioners of any
county having a population of. three thousand or more , 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 for 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
trea�ury CRS 1363 60 . 7 ,. : -
`" r� ���� , �''-� -Yil) ; payments thex•efrom 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 Local Government Budget Law. In short then, the
hospital is indirectly subject to both laws .
Very truly yours,
DUKE W. DUNBAR
Attorney General
DWD: JPM:T T
Hello