Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-213-12/05/1989-MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING MULTIPLE APPEALS OF THE FINANCIAL OFFICERS DECISION AS TO THE REAL RESOLUTION 89-213 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING MULTIPLE APPEALS OF THE FINANCIAL OFFICER'S DECISION AS TO THE REALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE PROVINCETOWNE-PORTNER SID NO. 81 AND THE SOUTH LEMAY SID NO. 86 WHEREAS, on October 17, 1989, the Financial Officer of the City, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 22-99 of the City Code and after notice and hearing, ordered the reallocation of assessments in the Provincetowne-Portner SID No. 81 and the South Lemay SID No. 86 (the "Districts") ; and WHEREAS, on October 31, 1989, the decision of the Financial Officer was appealed to the City Council through the filing of three (3) notices of appeal (the "appeals") , which were filed on behalf of Lake Shore Estates ("Lake Shore") , the Dueck Properties ("Dueck") , and Alma Murr ("Mrs. Murr") , collectively referred to below as the "parties in interest" ;and WHEREAS, on November 21, 1989, the City Council , after notice and hearing in accordance with Chapter 2, Article 2, Division 3 of the City Code, considered said appeals; and WHEREAS, after full consideration of the record on appeal and after hearing argument thereon, the Council decided the appeals, subject to its adoption of a resolution containing findings of fact consistent with its decision. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE APPEALS: 1. Sufficiency of Grounds. As to each of the appeals, the written grounds for appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the Code. 2. Findings as to the Appeal of Lake Shore. a. Notice. The City's notice of the reallocation hearing for the Districts was not misleading. It properly advised the parties in interest that a reallocation hearing would be held pursuant to the provisions of City Code. The notice was consistent with the requirements of the Code. Any defect which may have existed in the form of the notice or in the timeliness of its publication or mailing in no way prejudiced the parties in interest. The notice of hearing adequately apprised the parties in interest of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing. b. Jurisdiction. The Financial Officer was not in any way deprived of jurisdiction to conduct the reallocation hearing. The reallocation of assessments by the Financial Officer is permitted under the City Code whenever any division of property subject to assessment occurs and a timely agreement as to reallocation has not been submitted by the affected property owners. The Financial Officer was not deprived of jurisdiction to conduct the hearing or to reallocate the assessments by the provisions of the agreements referred to in the Lake Shore notice of appeal as the "SIDS 81 and 86 Master Agreements, " (the "Master Agreements") or any events pertaining thereto, because the very purpose of the hearing was to determine which of the various reallocation proposals, if any, should be applied to the subject properties. C. Procedures. The procedures prior to and during the hearings on September 21, 1989, and on October 2, 1989, were correct and fundamentally fair. The time frames within which the parties in interest were required to submit proposals, objections and other materials to the Financial Officer were consistent with the Code and neither favored nor prejudiced any of the parties in interest. Extending the hearing to October 2 for the receipt of additional evidence and argument was for the purpose of accommodating the reasonable request of two of the parties in interest, as well as the need for additional time to conclude the hearing. Such procedure was consistent with the requirements of the Code and ensured that all parties in interest had ample opportunity to submit evidence and to be heard with regard to their own proposals and the proposals of the other parties in interest. d. Discretion . The Financial Officer exercised sound discretion in determining the method by which assessments would be reallocated for the Districts. First, the square-footage or area method of reallocation is not only consistent with the Master Agreements and the earlier findings of the City Council in the assessing ordinances for the Districts, but is also a reasonable method for equitably distributing the cost of the District improvements, especially in view of the nature of the improvements. The arterial streets, collector streets and other infrastructure funded through the formation of the Districts are of overall benefit to the properties within the Districts. Secondly, the City's forbearance from exercising any rights it may have against Dueck as a personal obligor under the Master Agreements in no way extinguishes the assessments, the assessment lien, or the City's recourse against the Lake Shore property, nor does it affect the reasonableness of the Financial Officer's determination as to the appropriate method of reallocation. Finally, the Financial Officer did not abuse his discretion by determining that the "sellable land" upon which the reallocated assessments should be placed was all property within district boundaries that had not been dedicated to the City for public improvements. This determination is consistent with Section 22-99(f) of the City Code. e. Acreage Computations. The amount of acreage owned by Lake Shore should be computed according to the stipulation offered by all parties in interest at the hearing on appeal . 3. Findings as to the Appeal of Dueck. The Financial Officer neither abused his discretion nor failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the City Code and Charter in determining that the amount of assessments represented by the principal amount of the Street Oversizing Fund Revenue Note (the "Note") should be deducted from the total amount of assessments which were to be reallocated among the property owners within the Districts. In making this determination, the Financial Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing on the reallocation. The documents pertaining to the districts evidence an intent to reimburse Dueck for its payment of those assessments which are attributable to street oversizing costs. Because it is Dueck which will be reimbursed under the terms of the Note, it is the Dueck property which should be assessed for the street oversizing costs. 4. Findings as to the Appeal of Mrs. Murr. The property owned by Mrs. Murr is not eligible for the reallocation of assessments under Section 22-99 of the Code because Mrs. Murr's property has not been "subdivided" within the meaning of the Code since the date of assessment. Thus, in reaching his decision as to the Murr property, the Financial Officer did not fail to properly interpret the provisions of the City Code pertaining to reallocation, nor did he abuse his discretion or fail to conduct a fair hearing. Nonetheless, the property owned by Mrs. Murr appears from the record on appeal to be affected by the reallocation of assessments between Lake Shore and Dueck and, in particular, by the reallocation of the assessments for street oversizing costs. Mrs. Murr should receive a credit for any street oversizing costs that had previously been levied against her property and the amount of the assessment against the Murr property should be reduced accordingly. 5. Conclusions and Final Decision. For the foregoing reasons, the Council hereby determines as follows: a. The decision of the Financial Officer is upheld with regard to the reallocation of assessments between the Lake Shore and Dueck properties using an area or square-footage method of allocation and the Lake Shore appeal is denied, except as to the acreage calculations which are to be modified according to the stipulation of the parties, as shown in Subsection (c) below. b. The decision of the Financial Officer is also upheld with regard to the assessment of street oversizing costs against the Dueck property, subject to the modification as to acreage in Subparagraph (c) below, and the Dueck appeal is denied. C. The amount of the reallocated assessments against the Lake Shore and Dueck properties is hereby modified to reflect the stipulated amount of acreage owned by the respective parties, as follows: Acreage SID #81 SID #86 Total Property Owner Owned Assessment Assessment Assessment Lake Shore Estates 333.71 $1, 149,018.96 $683,035.91 $1,832,054.87 Dueck Companies 64.34 221,539.30 358,890.78 580,430.08 d. The Murr appeal is denied as to the grounds stated in the appeal , but the relief requested by Mrs. Murr is granted for the reasons stated in Paragraph 4 above. The decision of the Financial Officer regarding the amount of assessment to remain levied against the Murr property in SID #86 is modified so as to remove that portion of the assessment which is attributable to street oversizing costs, as follows: Property Owner Acreage Owned Assessment Murr 20 $40,935.90 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 5th day of December, A.D. 1989. ayor ATTEST: ST: �\Dbins t City Clerk