Colorado § 38-6-107 - Assessment of damages - lien - fund.

§ 38-6-107. Assessment of damages - lien - fund.

It is the duty of the commissioners to estimate, fix, and determine the fair and actual cash market value of all property proposed to be taken for the improvement, without reference to the projected improvement, and the fair, direct, and actual damage caused on account of said improvement to other property not taken for the improvement. The commissioners shall provide for the payment of the total amount of their awards for land taken and damaged, in all cases where the resolution or ordinance authorizing the improvement so provides, by assessing against the owners of all real estate which, in their opinion, will be specially benefited by the proposed improvement the amounts of said benefit as special assessments, and such commissioners shall assess the balance required to make said total amount as a general assessment against the petitioning city or city and county. Such special benefits shall be assessed against the owners of each lot or parcel of property that is, in the opinion of said commissioners, specially benefited by said improvement, which said special benefits shall be a lien on the property so charged, and shall be collected as provided by the charter or ordinance of said city or city and county, and when so collected shall be paid into the treasury of said city or city and county as a separate fund, to be used for the payment of the awards and damages.

Source: L. 11: p. 376, § 7. C.L. § 9082. CSA: C. 163, § 125. CRS 53: § 50-6-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 50-6-7.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Eminent Domain in Colorado", see 29 Dicta 313 (1952).

Assessment of damages by jury is in lieu of assessment by commission. Snider v. Town of Platteville, 75 Colo. 589, 227 P. 548 (1924).

Property owner is not entitled to have damages assessed twice, first by a commission and then by a jury. Snider v. Town of Platteville, 75 Colo. 589, 227 P. 548 (1924).

Speculative damages not awarded. All damages, present or prospective, which are the reasonable and necessary result of an improvement, are taken into account, and compensation awarded therefor, but not speculative damages which may by possibility result from future municipal action, for a different purpose. Moffat v. City & County of Denver, 57 Colo. 473, 143 P. 577 (1914).

Injury to business conducted upon lands taken not element of just compensation. Injury to a business conducted upon lands taken under the right of eminent domain, in the absence of a statute expressly allowing it, does not constitute an element of just compensation. City & County of Denver v. Tondall, 86 Colo. 372, 282 P. 191 (1929).

Railway property, benefited by special improvements, may be assessed the same as other lands. Post Printing & Publ'g Co. v. City & County of Denver, 68 Colo. 50, 189 P. 39 (1920).

"Benefit" construed. "Benefit", which justifies special assessment tax, is not the same "benefit" which must be calculated and deducted from a landowner's recovery in an eminent domain proceeding. City of Englewood v. Weist, 184 Colo. 325, 520 P.2d 120 (1974).

City not foreclosed from collecting special assessment tax. A city's failure to prove any benefit to the landowner's property in the section 38-1-101 proceeding does not foreclose the city from collecting a special assessment tax. The city was entitled to specially assess for the benefit accruing to the landowner's property by the construction of the special improvement. City of Englewood v. Weist, 184 Colo. 325, 520 P.2d 120 (1974).

Opinion of expert witnesses permitted as to amount of damages. Witnesses who have properly qualified as experts may give their opinion as to the amount of damages. City & County of Denver v. Tondall, 86 Colo. 372, 282 P. 191 (1929).

Applied in Lavelle v. Town of Julesburg, 49 Colo. 290, 112 P. 774 (1910); Wassenich v. City & County of Denver, 67 Colo. 456, 186 P. 533 (1919); City & County of Denver v. Tondall, 86 Colo. 372, 282 P. 191 (1929).