Defendants-appellants, Charles D. Byrne, et al, appealed to this court challenging the district court’s order mandating Byrne, Auditor of the City and County of Denver (Auditor), to countersign and register a cooperative agreement between the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) and the City Council (the Council) for the City and County of Denver (Denver). We affirm the judgment of the district court.
The following facts have been stipulated by the parties. Plaintiff-appellee, DURA, a corporate body politic,
see James v. Board of Commissioners of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority,
Colo.,
In order to finance the project, the Board of Commissioners of DURA approved on April 6, 1978, the issuance of $2,100,000 in bonds as authorized by section 31-25-109, C.R.S.1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12). Both DURA and the Council approved a cooperative agreement whereby the bonds were to be issued as “tax-allocation bonds” in conformance with section 31-25-107(9). 1 The principal and interest of the bonds would primarily be paid from a fund created by a tax-allocation scheme as follows. 2
Property in the project area would be assigned two valuations. Each parcel of property would be given a “base valuation” representing the valuation immediately pri- or to the approval of the plan. An “incremental valuation” would also be assigned property within the project area. The incremental valuation would represent the valuation subsequent to the approval of the plan. Taxes would be levied each year upon taxable property within the project area in the usual manner. There would be allocated to public use an amount equal to that portion of the taxes produced by the levy upon the base valuation. However, *1379 any excess revenues, representing the levy upon the incremental valuation minus the base valuation, would then be allocated to a special DURA fund irrevocably pledged to the payment of principal and interest on the bonds. This fund would benefit from the increased valuation of taxable property within the project area after the effective date of the plan’s approval. When all the bonds had been retired, no further allocation to the DURA fund would be made. The tax-allocation scheme would continue for a period not in excess of twenty-five years.
The cooperative agreement was submitted to the Auditor for his countersignature, and registration of the agreement, as required by Denver City Charter A7.1-1. This section provides that:
“[The auditor] shall sign all warrants, countersign and register all contracts ...; [he shall see] that no liability is incurred, money disbursed or the property of the city and county disposed of contrary to law or ordinance.... ”
Pursuant to this provision, the Auditor refused to countersign and register the cooperative agreement.
DURA then instituted an action in the district court seeking a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the cooperative agreement and also relief in the nature of mandamus to compel the Auditor to countersign and register the cooperative agreement. 3 The complaint was amended by DURA to join School District No. 1 (the school district) as a party-defendant. 4 The Auditor counterclaimed alleging that the cooperative agreement was unconstitutional and violated the Denver City Charter. All parties moved for summary judgment, which was granted in favor of DURA. The defendants-appellants appealed to this court again challenging the constitutionality of the cooperative agreement. The defendants-appellants concede that the cooperative agreement conforms to section 31-25-107(9), and therefore they directly attack its validity.
I.
A jurisdictional defect may be noticed at any stage of an action whether or not there has been an assignment of error.
Peaker v. Southern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Although not raised by DURA, a difficult jurisdictional question is presented in this case. Consequently, we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs discussing the defendants-appellants’ standing to challenge the legality of a state statute. In this case, we are confronted with the question whether Denver, the Auditor, the school district, or the members of the Board of Education of the school district have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute enacted by the General Assembly.
A long-standing rule of law is that “political subdivisions of the state, and the officers thereof, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute directing the performance of their duties.”
Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General Assembly, supra.
This rule has been applied to counties, county officers, and county agencies, e.
g., Board of
*1380
County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General Assembly, supra; Lamm
v.
Barber, supra; Martin v. District Court,
This general rule is harmonious with the two-prong test of standing recently adopted by this court. In
Wimberly v. Etten-berg, supra,
we held that “[t]he proper inquiry on standing is whether the plaintiff has suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions.” We reaffirmed the applicability of this test in
Dodge v. Department of Social Services,
Colo.,
Here, all the defendants-appellants will arguably suffer injury in fact should the cooperative agreement become effective. The general fund of Denver, and consequently, the revenue of the school district, see footnote 4, supra, will arguably be directly and substantially affected. The difficult question is whether a legally protected interest is implicated. In order to resolve this question, the interests of Denver must be considered separately from the school district’s interest.
We first consider whether the school district and its board members have a legally protected interest within a statutory or constitutional sense. The longstanding bar preventing political subdivisions and the officers thereof from challenging the validity of state statutes has been expressly applied to school districts. Denver Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. School District No. 1, supra. School districts may not attack a state statute unless there has been conferred upon them a legally protected interest by either statute, accord, Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General Assembly, supra, or constitutional provision. No such statutory or constitutional provision has been cited to us. We therefore conclude that the school district, and consequently, the school board members, lack standing in this case.
Whether a home rule city has standing to challenge a state statute is a question which has not been directly addressed by this court. As mentioned above, Denver arguably will suffer an injury in fact. We conclude that Denver has a legally protected interest. Consequently, Denver has standing in this case.
Here, it is asserted on behalf of Denver that Denver’s right of home rule, see generally Colo. Const. Art. XX, Sec. 6, is violated by section 31-25-107(9) of the Urban Renewal Law. Fundamentally, Denver argues that the statute authorizes the interference with such matters of local concern as the collection and distribution of ad valo-rem tax revenues and the incurrence of municipal debt.
On such questions of local concern, a home rule city is vested with the plenary power of self-government. Colo. Const. Art. XX, Sec. 6(h) provides that “[i]t is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of all municipalities coming within its provisions the full right of self-government in both local and municipal matters . ... ” This court has stated that:
*1381 “In numerous opinions handed down by this court extended over a period of fifty years, it has been made perfectly clear that when the people adopted Article XX they conferred every power theretofore possessed by the legislature to authorize municipalities to function in local and municipal affairs.” (Emphasis in original.)
Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District v. Board of County Commissioners,
Here, Denver asserts that section 31-25-107(9) violates various provisions of the Denver City Charter. Denver also argues that this section is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid because of the manner in which it adversely affects the collection and distribution of ad valorem tax revenues, and the creation of municipal debt. Clearly, Denver has a legally protected interest in this context as contemplated by Colo. Const. Art. XX. We conclude that Denver does have standing to challenge the validity of section 31-25-107(9). Accord, Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General Assembly, supra; Board of County Commissioners v. Love, supra. 5
Since Denver has standing to assert the invalidity of the cooperative agreement, we therefore address the issues which it has raised. Denver Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. School District No. 1, supra.
II.
We first address whether the proposed bond issuance by DURA of tax-allocation bonds pursuant to section 31-25-107(9) violates the constitutional debt limitation provision, Colo. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 6 6 or conflicts with Denver’s charter debt limitation provision, Denver City Charter, A6.17 7 and therefore is unconstitutional pursuant to Colo. Const. Art. XX, Sec. 6.
Denver asserts that as a consequence of the tax-allocation structure, it is subjected *1382 to a general obligation in violation of these constitutional and charter debt limitation provisions notwithstanding the provision of the DURA resolution which provides: “[t]he bonds, interest, and premium ... are not a debt of the City and County of Denver, the State of Colorado, or any political subdivision thereof .... ” Denver argues that the bonds are retired by ad valorem tax revenues which would otherwise be available for the payment of Denver’s general obligations, and therefore an indebtedness is created within the constitutional or charter sense. We disagree.
While the bonds are partially retired with ad valorem tax revenues, the tax-allocation bond financing scheme is carefully devised so that the monies which will be utilized to retire the bonds would not otherwise have been available to Denver for its general revenue purposes. Taxes are allocated to DURA only in an amount equal to the levy against the increased assessed valuation of property within the project area subsequent to the valuation. To ensure that tax revenues are allocated to DURA based solely upon the increased valuation of property because of the project, section 31-25-107(9)(e) provides that in the event there is a general reassessment of taxable property within any county including any part of the urban renewal project, the valuation of property within the project area shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with such assessment. The tax allocation structure has been carefully drafted so that there is a direct relationship between the increased valuation of property within the project area, and thus, increased ad valorem tax revenues, and the project financed by the bond issue. Denver has not lost the benefit of any ad valorem tax revenues which would otherwise have been available for its general revenue purposes had the plan never been adopted.
See generally Allardice v. Adams County,
The obligation created as a result of the bond issuance is solely that of DURA. A special DURA fund, supported by the allocation of tax revenues as above discussed, is irrevocably pledged by DURA to repay the principal and interest of the bonds. Since the obligation is DURA’s, and not Denver’s, we find no violation of the constitutional and charter debt limitation provisions imposed upon Denver.
See generally In re Interrogatories of the Colorado State Senate,
III.
Denver also argues on various grounds that the plan results in an unlawful pledge of credit or grant of aid to public or private entities or persons. We disagree.
A.
Denver asserts that the statutory tax-allocation scheme violates Colo. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 1 which provides:
“Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, township, or school district shall lend or pledge the credit or faith thereof, directly or indirectly, in any manner to or in aid of, any person, company, public or private . . . . ”
*1383
We first consider whether the plan causes Denver to pledge its credit to DURA. As discussed above, Denver is not indebted as a result of the tax-allocation financing scheme. The obligation incurred is solely DURA’s. The DURA resolution authorizing the bonds clearly provides that only DURA is obligated to repay the bonded indebtedness, and the financing scheme bears this out. Prospective investors will not look to the credit of Denver. We conclude that section 31-25-107(9) does not violate
Colo.Const.
Art. XI, Sec. 1 in that there has been no pledge of Denver’s credit to DURA.
See In re Interrogatories of the Colorado State Senate, supra; Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar, supra; Allardice v. Adams County, supra; Ginsberg v. City and County of Denver, supra. See also Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. Leech,
Tenn.,
Nor do we find, as Denver contends, that there is an unlawful pledge of credit to a private party. Denver argues the cooperative agreement envisions a private party developing land acquired from DURA which subsidizes the redevelopment by the use of proceeds from the bond issuance. The developer, Denver asserts, will be excused from paying its fair share of taxes to the local government as the tax revenues resulting from the levy upon the increased valuation will be used to retire a debt to which the developer is the beneficiary. Denver in its brief, expresses the view that through “artful indirection” there occurs a pledging of credit to a private party developer.
This is a tenuous argument. As discussed above, owners of property within the project area pay the full ad valorem taxes otherwise applicable.
See also
part VIII,
infra.
It is true that a portion of the taxes will be used to retire the bonds issued by DURA to finance the project to which the owner-developers will be indirect beneficiaries. We do not find this, however, to be a pledge of credit to the owner-developers.
See People ex rel. City of Canton v. Crouch,
Denver also argues that DURA has pledged its credit to private party developers in violation of Colo.Const. Art. XI, Sec. 1. Assuming DURA falls within this constitutional proscription, we do not agree that DURA has pledged its general credit or assets in support of payment of the bonds. As discussed above, a special fund is created from which the bonds are paid.
B.
Denver asserts that the tax — allocation scheme results in a donation or grant to private individuals in violation of Colo. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 2. This provision states that:
“Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, township, or school district shall make any donation or grant to, or in aid of ... any person, company, or corporation, public or private .... ”
Denver argues that the construction of an improvement for the intended purpose of sale or lease to a private corporation or individual violates this constitutional provision. Additionally, Denver takes the position that the payment of relocation benefits by DURA to persons displaced by the project, is authorized by section 31-25-105(l)(j), C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12), and therefore, this provision is violative of Colo.Const. Art. XI, Sec. 2.
As to Denver’s first contention, we find no donation or grant in aid of an individual or corporation which might purchase or lease any of the property acquired by DURA. DURA may not sell, lease, or otherwise transfer real property or improvements at less than fair value. Section 31-25-106(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Repl.Vol. 12).
See Chitwood v. City and County of Denver,
C.
We next address Denver’s argument that the payment of relocation benefits to persons displaced by the project constitutes an unconstitutional expenditure of public funds in the aid of private persons. Relocation benefits are provided for by section 31-25-105(l)(j). Denver argues that since the relocation benefits are not required under the Colorado or Federal Constitutions,
see Auraria Businessmen v. DURA,
Relocation benefits will be paid only to persons or businesses displaced by the project, undisputably for a public purpose. See Rabinoff v. District Court, supra. Only reasonable relocation benefits as compensation for “moving expenses and actual direct losses (except goodwill or profit)” will be paid, and only if other reimbursement or compensation is not made. Section 31-25-105(l)(j). The purpose of this provision is to provide supplemental assistance for particular and well-defined losses resulting from relocation. Auraria. Businessmen v. DURA, supra. No net benefit will accrue to the relocated person or business. As such, there is no violation of Article XI, Section 2. Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar, supra.
IV.
Denver argues that the General Assembly intended that relocation benefits are to be paid only when federal assistance will be available to pay for all or part of the project. See section 24-56-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973. 8 Denver ignores section 31— 25-105(1)0):
“Every authority has all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this part 1, including, but not limited to, the following ...
0) To make reasonable relocation payments to or with respect to individuals, families, and business concerns situated in an urban renewal area which will be displaced ... for moving expenses and actual direct losses of property (except goodwill or profit) resulting from their displacement for which reimbursement or compensation is not otherwise made including the making of such payments financed by the federal government.”
V.
Denver argues that the owner of property within the project area will benefit from the redevelopment of his property, the only expense being an increase in ad valorem tax revenues; whereas, if the property were not located in the project area, the owner would have to pay the costs of redevelopment and also, the increased ad valorem tax revenues. Consequently, Den *1385 ver argues, the owner of property outside the project area is arbitrarily discriminated against in violation of Colo.Const Art. II, Sec. 25 and U.S.Const. Amendment 14.
Denver also argues that DURA’s acquisition of property within the project area results or will result in a taking of private property for private purposes without just compensation. Denver’s reasoning is that since section 31-25-107(9), which provides for the tax-allocation scheme, is unconstitutional, therefore the use of the proceeds from the bond issuance to acquire private property is not for a public purpose and consequently, in violation of Colo.Const. Art. II, sections 14 and 15.
Since Denver does not purport to be a member of the class of property owners alleged to be adversely affected, it does not have standing to raise these issues.
American Metal Climax, Inc. v. Butler,
VI.
Denver next argues that the Urban Renewal Law constitutes local or special legislation and therefore violates
Colo. Const.
Art. V, Sec. 25. It is apparent that the statute is a general law uniform in its operation and applies to all similarly situated, and therefore is not local or special legislation.
People v. Gilpin Investment Co.,
VII.
Denver argues that Colo.Const. Art. XX, Sec. 6, which provides broad home-rule authority to Denver, prohibits the proposed bond issuance. We disagree.
Urban blight is a matter of both statewide and local concern.
See generally Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency v. Leech, supra. Accord Pillar of Fire v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, supra.
Consequently, both the General Assembly and a local government can act to alleviate this problem provided the state and the local law do not conflict.
DeLong
v.
City and County of Denver,
The local governing body must concur with an urban renewal authority’s proposed project before the project can be commenced. Section 31-25-107. However, a local governing body is not required to approve a proposed project. Id. Nor does an urban renewal authority have the power to require a local governing body to enter into a tax-allocation financing scheme. Section 31-25-112. Thus, any possible conflict is avoided, and thereby a violation of Colo. Const. Art. XX, Sec. 6 is avoided.
VIII.
Denver questions whether the tax-allocation financing scheme violates Colo.Const. Art. V, Sec. 35 which provides:
“The general assembly shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association, any power to make, supervise, or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property, or effects, whether held in trust or otherwise, or to levy taxes or perform any municipal function whatever.”
We cannot agree with Denver’s contention that the statutory tax-allocation financing scheme is an improper delegation of power to DURA to supervise or interfere with the levying and collection of taxes, as well as committing municipal funds derived from Denver’s general revenue.
The purpose of this constitutional provision is to prevent the intrusion upon
*1386
a municipality’s domain of local self-government.
Holyoke v. Smith,
Nor do we agree with Denver’s position that there has been an illegal delegation of legislative power from the General Assembly or the local governing body to a non-elected, non-representative board. In support of this argument, Denver cites
Greeley Police Union v. City Council,
IX.
Denver next asserts that the tax-allocation financing scheme causes non-uniform taxation in violation of four provisions of the Colorado Constitution. The provisions which are purportedly violated are Colo. Const. Art. X, Sections 3, 8, 9, and 10. These sections require the uniform assessment of property and levying of taxes, and prohibit the release of any property from its proportionate share of taxes. We will first address whether section 3 is violated by the tax-allocation financing scheme, and then whether sections 8, 9, and 10 are likewise violated.
Colo.Const. Art. X, Sec. 3 provides:
“All taxes shall be uniform upon each of the various classes of real and personal property located within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax
Denver contends that this provision is violated because of the unequal distribution of its ad valorem revenues. Specifically, Denver argues that this provision is violated because a portion of the tax revenues from the levy upon property within the project area are allocated to DURA for retirement of the bonds.
Colo.Const.
Art. X, Sec. 3, however, has not been held to require equal distribution of tax revenues, nor do we today render such an interpretation. Rather, this provision requires that the burden of taxation be uniform on the same class of property within the jurisdiction of the authority levying the tax.
Citizens Committee For Fair Taxation v. Warner,
We next address whether the plan unconstitutionally excludes certain property from its proportionate share of municipal taxes. The relevant constitutional provisions are
Colo.Const.
Art. X, Sections 8, 9, and 10,
9
which “proscribe the legislative
*1387
power to impair the financial base of government operations.”
Allardice v. Adams County, supra,
at 158,
We have heretofore discussed the impact of the tax — allocation financing scheme upon Denver. It is not indebted, nor does Denver lose the benefit of its tax revenues which would have otherwise been available for its use. The portion of tax revenues allocated to DURA represent the amount generated by virtue of increased property valuation which would not have existed but for the project. In this light, it becomes clear that the fiscal base of Denver is not impaired.
X.
We next address the question whether the tax-allocation financing scheme constitutes an impairment of contracts in violation of U.S.Const. Art. I, See. 10, and Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 11. Denver argues that the prior general obligation bonds are impaired as a result of the tax-allocation arrangement. Specifically, Denver argues that subsequent to the tax-allocation financing scheme a portion of ad valorem tax revenues is allocated to DURA, and therefore a limitation is placed upon Denver’s “full faith and credit” previously pledged in support of repayment of its general obligations. We disagree with this contention.
The ad valorem tax revenues previously available for repayment of Denver’s general obligations will likewise be available after the plan is adopted and the tax-allocation scheme is operative. That portion of the ad valorem tax revenues allocated to DURA
represents the amount generated as a result of increased property valuation due to the project. See part II, supra. Therefore, since Denver has not lost the benefit of any tax revenues which would have otherwise been available, no impairment of contracts has occurred. See generally Richards v. City of Muscatine, supra.
XI.
Section 31-25-113, C.R.S. 1973, a provision of the Urban Renewal Law, provides:
“No authority created by this part 1 has any power to levy or assess any ad valo-rem taxes, personal property taxes, or any other form of taxes, including special assessments against any property.”
Notwithstanding this clear prohibition, Denver maintains that DURA does levy and assess ad valorem taxes, and therefore the financing scheme is void. As discussed above, however, DURA does not levy and assess ad valorem taxes. Nor can DURA so act as section 31-25-113 expressly precludes an urban renewal authority from having any power of taxation.
XII.
The final issue before us is whether the district court properly ordered the Auditor to countersign and register the cooperative agreement as required by
Denver City Charter
A7.1-1. The Auditor refused to countersign and register the cooperative agreement on the ground that to do so might violate his obligation to ensure that “no appropriation of funds is overdrawn or misapplied and that no liability is incurred, money disbursed or property of the city and county disposed of contrary to law or ordinance .... ”
Denver City Charter
A7.1-1. Since the cooperative agreement and the tax-allocation financing scheme is not unlawful, mandamus was therefore proper to
*1388
compel the Auditor to countersign and register the agreement.
Mile High Enterprises v. Dee,
The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.
Notes
. Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S.1973 (1977 Repl. Vol. 12) provides:
“(9)(a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any urban renewal plan, as originally approved or as later modified pursuant to this part I, may contain a provision that taxes, if any, levied after the effective date of the approval of such urban renewal plan upon taxable property in an urban renewal area each year by or for the benefit of any public body shall be divided for a period not to exceed twenty-five years after the effective date of adoption of such a provision, as follows:
(I) That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or for each such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in the urban renewal area last certified prior to the effective date of approval of the urban renewal plan or, as to an area later added to the urban renewal area, the effective date of the modification of the plan shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body.
(II) That portion of the taxes in excess of such amount shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the authority to pay the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by, whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise, such authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, an urban renewal project within such urban renewal area. Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in an urban renewal area exceeds the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in such urban renewal area, as provided in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a), all of the taxes levied upon the taxable property in such urban renewal area shall be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies. When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in such urban renewal area shall be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies.
(b) The portion of taxes described in sub-paragraph (II) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (9) may be irrevocably pledged by the authority for the payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness.
(c) As used in this subsection (9), the word “taxes” shall include, without limitation, all levies authorized to be made on an ad valo-rem basis upon real and personal property; but nothing in this subsection (9) shall be construed to require any public body to levy taxes.
(d) In the case of urban renewal areas, including single and multiple-family residences, school districts which include all or any part of such urban renewal area shall be permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in an urban renewal plan of the provision provided for by this subsection (9).
(e) In the event there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in any county including all or part of the urban renewal area subject to division of valuation for assessment under paragraph (a) of this subsection (9), the portions of valuations for assessment under both subparagraphs (i) and (II) of said paragraph (a) shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with such reassessment.”
. The bonds are also to be repaid with “project income,” defined as income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of real property or improvements within the project area, and any other income DURA receives in conjunction with the project.
. The City and County of Denver is also named as a party-defendant and appellant in the designation of parties before this court.
. A portion of the revenues raised by Denver’s tax levy must be paid to the school district for its educational program. See section 22-40-102(1), C.R.S.1973, and section 39-1-111(1), C.R.S.1973. The school district was permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the tax-allocation provisions of the plan to the extent required by section 31-25-107(9).
. Denver City Charter A7.1-1 delegates to the Auditor the power to ensure that “no liability is incurred, money disbursed or the property of the city and county disposed of contrary to law or ordinance .. .. ” We do not find it necessary to consider the standing of the Auditor to raise the constitutional questions involved in this case inasmuch as the interests of Denver and its Auditor have merged in their common claims of constitutional invalidity.
. Colo. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 6, provides:
“No political subdivision of the state shall contract any general obligation debt by loan in any form ... except by adoption of a legislative measure which shall be irrepeala-ble until the indebtedness therein provided shall have been fully paid or discharged, specifying the purposes to which the funds to be raised shall be applied and providing for the levy of a tax which together with such other revenue, assets, or funds as may be pledged shall be sufficient to pay the interest and principal of such debt. Except as may be otherwise provided by the charter of a home rule city and county, city, or town for debt incurred by such city and county, city, or town, no such debt shall be created unless the question of incurring the same be submitted to and approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon . . .. ”
.Denver City Charter A6.17, A6.17-1 and A6.17-2 provide:
“No loan shall be made and no bonds shall be issued for any purpose, except in pursuance of an ordinance authorizing the same, which ordinance shall be irrepealable until the indebtedness therein provided for and the bonds issued in pursuance thereof shall have been fully paid.”
“No loan shall be created nor bonds issued unless the question of creating the same and issuing the bonds therefor shall be submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of the City and County of Denver and a majority of those voting upon the question by ballot shall vote in favor of creating such debt and issuing such bonds.”
“The City and County of Denver shall not become indebted for any purpose or in any manner, to any amount which, including existing indebtedness, shall exceed three per cent (3 per cent) of the actual value as determined by the last final assessment of the taxable property within the City and County of Denver; provided, however, that in determining the limitation of the City and Coun.ty’s power to incur indebtedness, there shall not be included within the estimate bonds issued by the Board of Water Commissioners.”
. In this case, the payment of relocation benefits is not required by Colorado or Federal law as federal funds are not used to finance the project. See 84 Stat. 1894, section 24-56-101, C.R.S. 1973.
. Colo.Const. Art. X, Sec. 8 provides:
“No county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, the inhabitants thereof, nor the property therein, shall be released or discharged from their or its proportionate share of taxes to be levied for state purposes.” Although the language of this provision refers only to taxes levied for state purposes, it *1387 also applies to taxes levied for municipal purposes. Allardice v. Adams County, supra. Colo.Const. Art. X, Sec. 9 provides:
“The power to tax corporations and corporate property, real or personal, shall never be relinquished or suspended.”
Colo.Const. Art. X, Sec. 10 provides:
“All corporations in this state, or doing business therein, shall be subject to taxation for state, county, school, municipal and other purposes, on the real and personal property owned or used by them within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.”