31-4-213. Duties of city manager.

Statute text

It is the duty of the city manager to act as chief conservator of the peace within the city; to supervise the administration of the affairs of the city; to see that the ordinances of the city and the applicable laws of the state are enforced; to make such recommendations to the city council concerning the affairs of the city as seem desirable to him; to keep the city council advised of the financial conditions and future needs of the city; to prepare and submit to the city council the annual budget estimate; to prepare and submit to the city council such reports as are required by that body; to prepare and submit each month to the city council a detailed report covering all activities of the city, including a summary statement of revenues and expenditures for the preceding month, detailed as to appropriations and funds in such a manner as to show the exact financial condition of the city and of each department and division thereof as of the last day of the previous month; and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this part 2 or required of him by ordinance or resolution of the city council.

History

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1031, 1, effective July 1.

Annotations

Editor's note: This section is similar to former 31-3-213 as it existed prior to 1975.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since 31-4-213 is similar to former 31-3-213 prior to the 1975 repeal and reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent thereto, a relevant case construing a prior provision has been included in the annotations to this section.

In a council-manager form of government, the manager was responsible to council for the administration of all affairs of the city, and his duties required him to supervise the carrying out of policies previously set by the council. Franks v. City of Aurora, 147 Colo. 25, 362 P.2d 561 (1961).

Detrimental reliance and estoppel applicable. Where the conduct of the city in allowing its manager and engineer to exercise authority with respect to the carrying out of the project was such as to lead the defendants as reasonable men to believe that the officials were acting within the scope of the power granted to them, and the defendants relied, to their detriment, on the appearance thus created, it would be unjust to allow the city to renege; thus, the principles of estoppel relieve the defendants. Franks v. City of Aurora, 147 Colo. 25, 362 P.2d 561 (1961).