Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 29
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-110 (2026)

Expenditures not to exceed appropriation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) During the fiscal year, no officer, employee, or other spending agency shall expend or contract to expend any money, or incur any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the expenditures of money in excess of the amounts appropriated. Any contract, verbal or written, made in violation of this section shall be void, and no moneys belonging to a local government shall be paid on such contract. (2) Multiple-year contracts may be entered into where allowed by law or if subject to annual appropriation.

Source: L. 90: Entire part R&RE, p. 1434, § 1, effective January 1, 1991.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 29-1-113 as it existed prior to 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000). · cites it 12× “Despite the existence of a contractual provision providing that the prevailing party in any litigation shall be entitled to an award of their legal expenses, Petitioners argue that because it never appropriated money for such fees, any award is barred by section 29-1-110, 9…”
Broadband, Inc. v. Banning Lewis Ranch Metro. Dist. No. 1, 2018 COA 92 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 28× “Among the issues the division addresses is whether the contract violates section 29-1-110, C.R.S. 2017, which, as a general matter, precludes governmental entities from entering into contracts that obligate such an entity to expend funds beyond those already appropriated.”
Thyssenkrupp Safway, Inc. v. Hyland Hills Parks & Rec. Dist., 271 P.3d 587 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “Hyland Hills also contended that Safway's claim was barred by section 29-1-110(1), C.R.S8.2011, which requires local governments to spend only budgeted funds.”
Tihonovich v. Williams, 582 P.2d 1051 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 7× “In section 29-1-110, C.R.S. 1973, the Local Government Budget Law grants to the board, as the governing body of the local government, exclusive authority to set the county budget, as follows: “On the day set for consideration of such proposed budget, the governing body shall…”
Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 985 P.2d 56 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Therefore, we conclude that, under these circumstances, § 29-1-110, does not prohibit the court from awarding attorney fees to contractor against the town.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Douglas, Colorado, The v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (D. Colo. 2025). · cites it 5× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-110 (emphasis added).”
City of Fort Collins v. Open Int'l, LLC (D. Colo. 2023). · cites it 2× “Here, the Plaintiff relies in part on the Colorado Constitution, the City Charter, and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-110 (1), which all prohibit multiple-year financial obligations that are not subject to a specific appropriation.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-110(1) — 4 cases
Thyssenkrupp Safway, Inc. v. Hyland Hills Parks & Rec. Dist., 271 P.3d 587 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “Hyland Hills also contended that Safway's claim was barred by section 29-1-110(1), C.R.S8.2011, which requires local governments to spend only budgeted funds.”
Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000). “Despite the existence of a contractual provision providing that the prevailing party in any litigation shall be entitled to an award of their legal expenses, Petitioners argue that because it never appropriated money for such fees, any award is barred by section 29-1-110, 9…”
Broadband, Inc. v. Banning Lewis Ranch Metro. Dist. No. 1, 2018 COA 92 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “Among the issues the division addresses is whether the contract violates section 29-1-110, C.R.S. 2017, which, as a general matter, precludes governmental entities from entering into contracts that obligate such an entity to expend funds beyond those already appropriated.”
Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 985 P.2d 56 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). “Therefore, we conclude that, under these circumstances, § 29-1-110, does not prohibit the court from awarding attorney fees to contractor against the town.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-110(2) — 1 case
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Douglas, Colorado, The v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (D. Colo. 2025). “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-110 (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.