FLOOD09315

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: General Principles of Drainage Law Outline
• Date: 1/15/1980
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

"(d) Any alleviation of health and sanitation
hazards accruing to particular property or accruing
to public property in the improvement district, if
the provision of health and sanitation is paid for
wholly or partially out of funds derived from taxa-
tion of property owners of the improvement district;

-

"(e) Any reduction in the maintenance eosts of
particular property or of public property in the
improvement district, if the maintenance of the
public property is paid for wholly or partially out
of funds derived from taxation of property owners
of the improvement district;

"(f) Any increase in convenienee or redJctiorl in
inconvenience accruing to particular property owners,
includin6 the faeilitation of access to and travel
over streets, roads, and highways;

"(g) Recreational improvemeflts accruing to
particular property owners as a direct result
of drainage improvement."

This statute was adopted by the Colorado Legislature to define
"benefits", a term previously defined only by COL.rtS. See Shoerr,aker,
What Constitutes "Benefits" for Urban Drainage Projects, 51 Denver
L. Journal 551 (1974).

.

Although a benefit to the premises assessed must at least be equpl
to the burden imposed, the standard of apportionmlOnt of local improve-
ment costs to benefits is not one of absolute equality, but one of
reasonable approx1mation. Satter v. City of Littleton, 185 Colo.
90,522 P.2d 95 (1974). And, a presumption of validity inheres in
a city council's determination that benefits soecifically accruing
to properties equal or exceed assessmetlts thereor,. Satter, supra.
Further, a determination of special benefits and assessments is
left to the discretion of municipal authorities snd their dete~mination
is conclusive in the courts unless it is fraudulent or unreasonable.
Orchard Court Development Co. v. City of Boulder, 182 Colo. 361, 513
P.2d 199 (1973). A determination of no benefit in an eminent dom2in
proceeding does not preclude a subsequent special assessment pro-
viding a landowner's property benefited from construction of the
improvement. City of Englewood v. Weist, 184 Colo. 325, 520 p.2d
120 (1974). See, also, Denver v. Greenspoon, 140 Colo. 402, 344
P.2d 679 (1959); Town of Fort Lupton v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.,
156 Colo. 352, 399 P.2d 248 (1965); Houch v. Little River District,
239 U.S. 254 (1915); Miller and Lux v. Sacremetcto Drainage District,
256 U.S. 129 (1921).

(14 )

-

1-15-80