Colorado § 32-1-107 - Service area of special districts.

§ 32-1-107. Service area of special districts.

(1) A special district may be entirely within or entirely without, or partly within and partly without, one or more municipalities or counties, and a special district may consist of noncontiguous tracts or parcels of property.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, no special district may be organized wholly or partly within an existing special district providing the same service. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall prevent a special district providing different services from organizing wholly or partly within an existing special district. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a metropolitan district may be organized wholly or partly within an existing special district, but a metropolitan district shall not provide the same service as the existing special district.

(3) (a) For purposes of this subsection (3), "overlapping special district" means a new or existing special or metropolitan district located wholly or partly within an existing special or metropolitan district.

(b) An overlapping special district may be authorized to provide the same service as the existing special or metropolitan district that the overlapping special district overlaps or will overlap if:

(I) Where the service plan of such overlapping special district is subject to approval by the board of county commissioners, the board of county commissioners of the county or counties in which the overlapping territory is located approves by resolution the inclusion of such service as part of the service plan of said overlapping special district; and

(II) Where the service plan of such overlapping special district is subject to the approval of the governing body of a municipality, the governing body of any municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of the overlapping special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 (1)(a) or 32-1-204.7 approves by resolution the inclusion of such service as part of the service plan of said overlapping special district; and

(III) The improvements or facilities to be financed, established, or operated by the overlapping special district for the provision of the same service as the existing special or metropolitan district do not duplicate or interfere with any other improvements or facilities already constructed or planned to be constructed within the portion of the existing special or metropolitan district that the overlapping special district overlaps or will overlap; and

(IV) The board of directors of any special district or metropolitan district authorized to provide a service within the boundaries of the overlapping area consents to the overlapping special district providing the same service.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (3) shall be construed to encourage the unnecessary proliferation, duplication, overlapping, or fragmentation of special or metropolitan districts.

Source: L. 81: Entire article R&RE, p. 1546, § 1, effective July 1. L. 97: (2) amended and (3) added, p. 1415, § 1, effective June 3. L. 2003: (3)(b)(II) amended, p. 1315, § 1, effective August 6.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 32-3-103 (1) and (2) as it existed prior to 1981.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Survey of Colorado Tax Liens", see 14 Colo. Law. 1765 (1985).

"Organize" in subsection (2) applies to both the initial formation of a special district and the integration of multiple distinct parts into a single special district. Foothills Park v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2024 COA 62, 555 P.3d 644.

"Same service" requirement of subsection (3)(b) refers to the type of service and not any variation in the quality or sufficiency of the amenities provided by a special district. Foothills Park v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2024 COA 62, 555 P.3d 644.

Consent required to meet overlap exception in subsection (3)(b)(IV) is the consent of the special district that is authorized to provide a service in the overlapping area, not the consent of the district requesting the creation of the overlap through inclusion. Foothills Park v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2024 COA 62, 555 P.3d 644.

Statute applies to special district's request to include new development in its area of service provision where request for inclusion would create overlapping special districts authorized to provide the same services. Foothills Park v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2024 COA 62, 555 P.3d 644.

Agricultural property previously excluded from a recreational district may be reincluded within that district when the property use changes to residential and upon proper notice to property owners as required in this section, notwithstanding the fact that the change in use occurred seven years earlier and the property could have been reincluded in the district at that time. Front Range Partners v. Hyland Hills Metro., 706 P.2d 1279 (Colo. 1985).