Previous  Next

22-44-115. No obligation in excess of appropriation.

Statute text

(1) A board of education of a school district shall not expend any moneys in excess of the amount appropriated by resolution for a particular fund.

(2) Repealed.

(3) Except as provided otherwise by this section, any obligation of a contract, verbal or written, which requires expenditures contrary to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall be void, and no school district moneys shall be paid thereon.

(4) Notwithstanding any provisions of this section to the contrary, the board of education of a school district may enter into a contract for administrative services with a term not to exceed five years, for capital outlay purposes in accordance with articles 32, 42, 43, and 45 of this title, or for the purchase of real property by local college districts in accordance with section 23-71-122 (1)(c), C.R.S. Such a contract shall be valid and enforceable between parties to the contract. The provisions of this subsection (4) shall be subject to annual appropriation by the general assembly, the board of education, or the governing board.


Source: L. 64: p. 624, 15. C.R.S. 1963: 123-32-15. L. 67: p. 797, 1. L. 75: (1) and (3) amended and (2) repealed, pp. 707, 708, 5, 10, effective July 14; (4) amended, p. 1269, 2, effective July 1. L. 83: (4) amended, p. 820, 1, effective July 1. L. 85: (4) amended, p. 734, 5, effective May 31.





The guiding policy behind the statutes regarding school district funding is that of the prevention of deficit spending. DAEOP v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 972 P.2d 1047 (Colo. App. 1998).

Districts are not prohibited from adopting a contract or policy with fiscal implications over several years, however, districts are prevented from deficit spending by entering into contracts that are not modifiable in subsequent years. Because district's policy created a conditional promise or commitment to provide early retirement benefits, the promise was binding, subject to availability of adequate appropriated funds. Shaw v. Sargent Sch. Dist. No. RE-33-J, 21 P.3d 446 (Colo. App. 2001).