Delaware Code

9 Del. C. § 1133 (2026)

Administration and enforcement of the operating budget ordinance; adoption of operating budget; allocations and allotments; approval of allocations and allotments; revisions

✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The adoption of the operating budget ordinance is an appropriation of the sum specified in the budget for the purpose and from the funds indicated. The appropriation is valid only for the year for which it is made, and any part of an appropriation which is not encumbered or expended lapses at the end of the year.

(b) Following the adoption of the operating budget ordinance, the Chief Administrative Officer shall determine, with the approval of the County Executive, such allocation or allotment procedures as deemed appropriate for a proper administration of the budget. The head of each office, department, or board shall submit to the Chief Administrative Officer such work programs and requests for allocations and allotments as deemed appropriate for the most efficient and effective operation of each office, department or board.

(c) The approval of such allocations and allotments, in the amounts submitted or in amended amounts approved by the County Executive, shall constitute budgetary allocations and allotments which shall be binding upon such office, department, or board, and the Department of Administration shall not approve nor issue any requisition, purchase order, voucher, or check that is not in accordance with such allocation or allotment.

(d) The allocations and allotments provided in this section may be altered at the direction of the County Executive. The County Executive shall direct appropriate revisions in allocations and allotments to keep expenditures within the revenues received or anticipated.

9 Del. C. 1953, §  1133;  55 Del. Laws, c. 85, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  1;  71 Del. Laws, c. 401, §§  28-31;  83 Del. Laws, c. 7, § 4;  83 Del. Laws, c. 7, § 5; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1974–1974 · leading case: Lindh v. O'HARA, 325 A.2d 84 (Del. 1974).
Lindh v. O'HARA, 325 A.2d 84 (Del. 1974). · cites it 5× “The argument is that the repeal occurred by implication by virtue of Section 42 of the Reorganization Act 6 when read in conjunction with 9 Del.C. § 1133(c) 7 We find no merit in this contention.”
9 Del. C. § 1133(c): 1 case
Lindh v. O'HARA, 325 A.2d 84 (Del. 1974). “The argument is that the repeal occurred by implication by virtue of Section 42 of the Reorganization Act 6 when read in conjunction with 9 Del.C. § 1133(c) 7 We find no merit in this contention.”
9 Del. C. § 1133(d): 1 case
Lindh v. O'HARA, 325 A.2d 84 (Del. 1974). “The argument is that the repeal occurred by implication by virtue of Section 42 of the Reorganization Act 6 when read in conjunction with 9 Del.C. § 1133(c) 7 We find no merit in this contention.”
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.