15 APRIL 2014:

BoCo FIRM lawsuit challenges County's authority to form LID 

As part of the ongoing BoCo FIRM subdivision paving lawsuit against
Boulder County Commissioners Domenico, Gardner and Jones (Case Number:
13 CV 31685), attorney Madeline Meacham filed a Colorado Rule of Civil
Procedure 106 brief on April 3, 2014. A copy of the brief, filed in
the 20th District Court on behalf of nearly 200 plaintiffs,can be
downloaded by clicking on the following link Plaintiff's 106 Brief .
The Brief is also posted on the BoCo FIRM web site: www.BoCoFIRM.org. 

In an effort to expedite a decision, the court decided in February to
address a key issue first, namely the plaintiff's contention that the
County exceeded the authority granted by state statute when it formed
the LID for maintenance. The brief requests the court to invalidate
the authorization of the Subdivision Paving LID, order the return
assessments and installments paid with interest, and remove the liens
imposed on properties.

The 22-pgage brief is organized in three parts - a Statement of the
Facts, a Summary of the Argument, and the Argument which includes a
request for judgment. There are twenty-three key facts that serve to
support the argument and here are the highlights: 

    Subdivision roads were accepted by the County, many expressly for
maintenance.  The percentage of property tax for roads was decreased
from 8.6% to 0.8% by 2012.  The County decided to eliminate chip
sealing, overlays and reconstruction in mid-90's.  Subdivision roads
were allowed to deteriorate.  In 2009, after years 15 years of
neglect, the County begins exploring how to impose the majority of
maintenance cost of subdivision roads on property owners.  In 2012,
property owners rejected a PID (which may be expressly used for
maintenance) and the County proceeded to impose a LID which must use a
sales tax for including maintenance.

 In the Summary of the Argument, there are four basic claims:

    The LID statute does not authorize a county to impose assessments
for ongoing maintenance of roads, except where funded by a sales tax.

    The LID statues must be considered in harmony with other state
statutes that establish county responsibilities for road construction
and maintenance.

    The LID statute is for improvements to property that specially
benefit that property

    The county's narrow definition of maintenance is not consistent
with that of the State and the common accepted definition.

The Argument gives substantial background and case law supporting the
claims above and notes the terrible precedent established and the
power obtained by local government to shift its responsibilities to
provide public service by targeting a minority when the majority is
unwilling to pay for such services. The brief concludes with a
judgment request to find that the County exceeded its authority to
create the Subdivision Paving LID and to invalidate the LID, return
assessments, remove liens and award court cost and attorney fees to
plaintiffs. 
 
For a complete summary of the lawsuit click on the following link BoCo
FIRM Sues Boulder County to Stop the LID  

What happens next:

The County now has 35 days to file their response. We will then have
14 days to reply to the County's response. The Court will then make a
ruling on the lack of authority claim. If the court rules in favor of
the plaintiffs and barring any appeals by the County, the likely
outcome will be that the LID will be dissolved for all 10,900 property
owners and all assessments paid will be refunded. A ruling on the 106
claim is expected in June. 

EOF