Colorado § 31-12-602 - Contents of petition.

§ 31-12-602. Contents of petition.

(1) The petition must contain the following:

(a) A description of the land sought to be disconnected;

(b) An allegation that the land contains in the aggregate an area of twenty or more acres and is located upon or adjacent to the border of the city;

(c) An allegation that no part of the land has been duly platted into lots and blocks as a part of or addition to the city;

(d) An acknowledgment that, for a period of six years after the effective date of the disconnection, the land shall not be subdivided into lots or plats of smaller area than is required during such period for lots within the city adjoining the land sought to be disconnected under the applicable ordinances or regulations of such city;

(e) An acknowledgment that the land shall not be used during said six-year period for industrial or commercial uses if, during such period, the applicable ordinances of the city prohibit such uses upon the area within the city adjoining such land;

(f) An allegation that all taxes or assessments lawfully due upon the land up to the time of the filing of the petition have been fully paid; and

(g) An allegation that the tracts of land are not located within the boundaries of an urban renewal area described in an urban renewal plan approved pursuant to part 1 of article 25 of this title 31 or a special district that, by its service plan or pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement, is or will be expected to provide service to the tract of land.

(2) Any decree of disconnection entered pursuant to this part 6 shall restrict the use of the land in the manner set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of this section, but such restrictions shall not continue to apply to any land which, within six years after the effective date of the disconnection, is annexed back into the city.

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1101, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2026: IP(1) and (1)(f) amended and (1)(g) added, (HB 26-1253), ch. 100, p. 398, § 3, effective August 12.

Editor's note: (1) This section is similar to former § 31-8-402 as it existed prior to 1975.

(2) Section 8(2) of chapter 100 (HB 26-1253), Session Laws of Colorado 2026, provides that the act changing this section applies to applications for disconnection from a municipality and petitions for disconnection from a city or town commenced on or after August 12, 2026.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-602 is similar to former § 31-8-402 prior to the 1975 repeal and reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Procedures for disconnection of territory are mandatory. The procedures for disconnection by court decree of territory from a city as provided for in this section are mandatory. Master Kraft Bldrs. Corp. v. City of Lakewood, 44 Colo. App. 90, 615 P.2d 47 (1980).

This section recognizes the 20 acres or more as a unit which is required to be upon or adjacent to the border of the town. Gypsum v. Lundgren, 61 Colo. 332, 157 P. 195 (1916).

Section does not prescribe amount of property to qualify land for disconnection. This section does not prescribe the amount or percentage of the subject property which must be located upon the border of the city to qualify a tract of land for disconnection. Master Kraft Bldrs. Corp. v. City of Lakewood, 44 Colo. App. 90, 615 P.2d 47 (1980).

This section applies only to unplatted lands within the corporate limits, land laid out in blocks and lots with the streets of the city or town running through it is not the character of land contemplated by the section. Town of Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132 (1905).

A block in a city is a part of the city enclosed by streets, whether occupied by buildings or composed of vacant lots. Town of Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132 (1905).

And the ordinary meaning of the term "lot", when used with reference to town or city property, is a subdivision of a block according to the map or survey of such town or city. Town of Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132 (1905).

Proof of contiguity required. In a proceeding to disconnect lands from a city it is not necessary for petitioners to allege the lands to be contiguous, but under § 31-12-601 it is necessary to prove that the lands are contiguous. Sheridan v. Fox Metal Prods. Corp., 123 Colo. 94, 227 P.2d 1003 (1950).

Standing despite failure to pay taxes. Under this section, the owner of a parcel of lands within the description set down in the statute may maintain a petition to disconnect it from the city or town within which it is included, even thought taxes levied thereon but not yet due are unpaid. Hendricks v. Town of Julesburg, 55 Colo. 59, 132 P. 61 (1913).

Taxes remain a lien on disconnected land. The argument that no land should be taken out of the corporate limits until all claims for taxes against it are adjusted, whether due or not, for such in effect is the contention of defendant in error, is without merit, because it is clear that, in any event, all taxes lawfully assessed against the land, prior to its disconnection, create a lien against it, and the land would be held for the payment of such taxes, as well after disconnection as before, and the provision that all taxes due at the time of the filing of the petition must be shown to have been paid, was simply to preclude owners from making such application when actually in default, and is a very wise and proper requirement. It was in no sense intended thereby to discriminate against such owners and compel them to pay taxes before other taxpayers are required to do so. Hendricks v. Town of Julesburg, 55 Colo. 59, 132 P. 61 (1913).

Trial court did not err by requiring that landowners' petition to disconnect from home rule municipality contain all of the statutory elements required in a petition filed under § 31-12-601 because those procedural elements are incorporated by reference in § 31-12-119. While § 31-12-601 applies to petitions to disconnect from statutory cities, § 31-12-119 applies to petitions to disconnect from municipalities, and those petitions must follow the procedures set forth in this section. Radcliff Props. Ltd. P'ship, LLLP v. City of Sheridan, 2012 COA 82, 296 P.3d 310.

The record supports the court's denial of landowners' petition because landowners failed to show that municipality did not, upon demand, provide landowner's parcels the same municipal services on the same general terms and conditions that the rest of the municipality received. Radcliff Props. Ltd. P'ship, LLLP v. City of Sheridan, 2012 COA 82, 296 P.3d 310.

Landowners' petition to disconnect from home rule municipality filed under § 31-12-119 is not precluded by § 31-12-603 (1). Radcliff Props. Ltd. P'ship, LLLP v. City of Sheridan, 2012 COA 82, 296 P.3d 310.

Applied in Anaconda Mining Co. v. Town of Anaconda, 33 Colo. 70, 80 P. 144 (1905); Brell v. Ovid, 88 Colo. 198, 293 P. 961 (1930).