CO Code § 31-25-513 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 31 - Government - Municipal|Article 25 - Public Improvements|Part 5 - Special Improvement Districts in Municipalities|§ 31-25-513. Cost Assessed in Accordance With Benefits

  The cost of improvements constructed or acquired pursuant to this part 5, or such part thereof as may be assessed against the property specially benefited, including the intersections of streets and alleys except the share to be assessed against railway companies, may be assessed on property, without regard to lot or land lines, on a frontage, zone, or other equitable basis in accordance with benefits as the same may be determined by the governing body.    When the governing body determines that the improvement of any street or alley, including the intersections of streets and alleys, or any other improvement authorized by this part 5 results in special benefits to both the municipality and the owners of property within the district, that portion of the cost of the improvement which results in a special benefit to the municipality may be assessed against the municipality and be payable in installments, as provided in this part 5. The determination by the governing body as to the property to be assessed and the amount of special benefits shall be conclusive of the facts stated therein.    No cost of improvements to streets or alleys shall be assessed to any property where reasonable access to the street or alley is denied the owner of the property.    Any district formed for the purpose of encouraging, accommodating, and financing improvements as authorized in section 31-25-502 (2) shall assess the costs of the improvements to each property whose owner has entered into a contract or agreement for the improvements. The contracts and agreements entered into with the owner of property, as authorized by the governing body, shall be conclusive regarding the special benefit to the property and the amount that may be assessed against the property.     History. Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1193, § 1, effective July 1. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 1469, § 1, effective June 4. L. 86: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1047, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2008: (4) added, p. 1302, § 26, effective May 27.    Editor's note:    This section is similar to former § 31-25-513 as it existed prior to 1975.    This section was originally numbered as § 31-25-512 in House Bill 75-1089 but was renumbered on revision in 1977 for ease of location.     ANNOTATION   Special improvement districts have as their objective improvement of the respective properties and are financed by a special assessment on each by reason of the relationship to the improvement bestowed. Ruberoid Co. v. North Pecos Water & San. Dist., 158 Colo. 498 , 408 P.2d 436 (1965).   The theory upon which the owner of property abutting upon a city street may be required to pay the cost of paving the same is that the property is benefited in addition to the benefits received by the public at large. Watson v. City of Ft. Collins, 86 Colo. 305 , 281 P. 355 (1929).   Owners not burdened by inclusion of two streets in district. Inclusion of two streets in a single improvement district will not result in burdening the owners of property on one street with the substantial costs of creating the larger, undeveloped second street, because assessments are apportioned on the basis of benefit. Kaiser v. City of Lakewood, 33 Colo. App. 239, 517 P.2d 471 (1973).   Front-foot, square-foot basis of attributing benefits and assessing costs has long been considered a valid method of apportionment. Orchard Court Dev. Co. v. City of Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973).   An abutting landowner may not be assessed for paving land along railway. As abutting landowners in a street paving district are taxed for the improvement to the extent of the special benefit to their property, and any tax in addition thereto on account thereof is invalid, in an action to determine who should pay for paving the right-of-way of a municipally owned street railway, it is held that the abutting landowners may not be assessed for the cost of the paving of the strip of land along which the railway extends, nor for the paving at street intersections. Watson v. City of Ft. Collins, 86 Colo. 305 , 281 P. 355 (1929).