Bill Commons

CO HB 1253

enacted

Disconnection from Statutory Municipality

Colorado · 2026 Regular Session · lower

Follow this bill’s action updates (Atom)

Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.

Quick answers

Did CO HB 1253 pass?

Yes. CO HB 1253 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-02-18): Introduced In House - Assigned to Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources

What is CO HB 1253 about?

Under current law, the owners of certain tracts of agricultural or farm land within and adjacent to the boundary of a statutory town or statutory city may petition the district court for the county to disconnect the land from the town or city (disconnection by court decree). The act modifies the disconnection by court decree process so that this process is not available for any tract of land that is included within the boundaries of an urban renewal area described in an urban renewal plan of an urban renewal authority (affected urban renewal authority) 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 (affected special district). Instead of using the disconnection by court decree process, owners of these tracts of land must use the process for disconnection applications from a statutory municipality.     Under current law, the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a statutory municipality may apply to the governing body of the municipality for the enactment of an ordinance disconnecting the tract of land from the municipality (disconnection by ordinance). The act also modifies this disconnection by ordinance process by requiring that, in addition to the existing requirement that an owner provide notice and a copy of the disconnection application to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the tract of land is located and to the board of directors of any affected special district, the owner seeking disconnection must also provide notice and a copy of the disconnection application to any affected urban renewal authority. Upon receiving the notice and application, these entities may request a meeting with the owner of the land and the governing body of the municipality to discuss and address any negative impacts that would result from the disconnection, including any change in the level or extent of services being provided to the tract of land that is the subject of the disconnection application or any interference with the implementation of an urban renewal plan of an affected urban renewal authority. The failure of these entities to request a meeting constitutes an acknowledgment that the disconnection will not adversely affect them.     The act applies to applications for disconnection from a statutory municipality and petitions for disconnection from a statutory city or town commenced on or after the applicable effective date of the act.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Who sponsors CO HB 1253?

M. Snyder, B. Kirkmeyer, S. Slaugh are the primary sponsors of CO HB 1253, joined by 6 cosponsors.

Description

Under current law, the owners of certain tracts of agricultural or farm land within and adjacent to the boundary of a statutory town or statutory city may petition the district court for the county to disconnect the land from the town or city (disconnection by court decree). The act modifies the disconnection by court decree process so that this process is not available for any tract of land that is included within the boundaries of an urban renewal area described in an urban renewal plan of an urban renewal authority (affected urban renewal authority) 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 (affected special district). Instead of using the disconnection by court decree process, owners of these tracts of land must use the process for disconnection applications from a statutory municipality.     Under current law, the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a statutory municipality may apply to the governing body of the municipality for the enactment of an ordinance disconnecting the tract of land from the municipality (disconnection by ordinance). The act also modifies this disconnection by ordinance process by requiring that, in addition to the existing requirement that an owner provide notice and a copy of the disconnection application to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the tract of land is located and to the board of directors of any affected special district, the owner seeking disconnection must also provide notice and a copy of the disconnection application to any affected urban renewal authority. Upon receiving the notice and application, these entities may request a meeting with the owner of the land and the governing body of the municipality to discuss and address any negative impacts that would result from the disconnection, including any change in the level or extent of services being provided to the tract of land that is the subject of the disconnection application or any interference with the implementation of an urban renewal plan of an affected urban renewal authority. The failure of these entities to request a meeting constitutes an acknowledgment that the disconnection will not adversely affect them.     The act applies to applications for disconnection from a statutory municipality and petitions for disconnection from a statutory city or town commenced on or after the applicable effective date of the act.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Introduced
2026-02-18
Latest action
2026-02-18 — Introduced In House - Assigned to Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • M. Snydersponsor
  • B. Kirkmeyersponsor
  • S. Slaughsponsor
  • J. Colemancosponsor
  • C. Kippcosponsor
  • L. Goldsteincosponsor
  • S. Brightcosponsor
  • N. Hinrichsencosponsor
  • L. Frizellcosponsor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-05-04

    Governor Signed

    executive-signature

  2. 2026-04-23

    Sent to the Governor

    executive-receipt

  3. 2026-04-22

    Signed by the Speaker of the House

    passage

  4. 2026-04-22

    Signed by the President of the Senate

    passage

  5. 2026-04-02

    Senate Third Reading Passed - No Amendments

    passage,reading-3

  6. 2026-04-01

    Senate Second Reading Passed - No Amendments

    reading-2

  7. 2026-03-31

    Senate Second Reading Laid Over to 04/01/2026 - No Amendments

  8. 2026-03-26

    Senate Committee on Local Government & Housing Refer Unamended to Senate Committee of the Whole

    committee-passage,referral-committee

  9. 2026-03-20

    Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Local Government & Housing

    introduction

  10. 2026-03-17

    House Third Reading Passed - No Amendments

    passage,reading-3

  11. 2026-03-16

    House Second Reading Special Order - Passed with Amendments - Committee

  12. 2026-03-12

    House Committee on Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole

    committee-passage,referral-committee

  13. 2026-02-18

    Introduced In House - Assigned to Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources

    introduction

Versions

Documents

Votes

  • Adopt amendment L.001

    2026-03-12 · pass · 0-0

    Member-level votes (1)
    • Larry Don Suckla: excused

  • Refer House Bill 26-1253 to the Committee of the Whole.

    2026-03-12 · pass · 0-0

    Member-level votes (13)
    • Lori Garcia Sander: yes
    • Lori Goldstein: yes
    • Dusty Johnson: no
    • Mandy Lindsay: yes
    • Meghan Lukens: yes
    • Matthew Martinez: yes
    • Lesley Smith: yes
    • Katie Stewart: yes
    • Tammy Story: yes
    • Larry Don Suckla: excused
    • Ty Winter: yes
    • Tisha Mauro: yes
    • Karen McCormick: yes

  • Refer House Bill 26-1253 to the Committee of the Whole.

    2026-03-26 · pass · 0-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Mark Baisley: no
    • Matt Ball: yes
    • William Lindstedt: yes
    • Larry Liston: yes
    • Janice Rich: yes
    • Marc Snyder: yes
    • Tony Exum: excused

  • BILL

    2026-04-02 · pass · 0-0

    Member-level votes (36)
    • Amabile: yes
    • Baisley: no
    • Ball: yes
    • Benavidez: yes
    • Bridges: yes
    • Bright: yes
    • Carson: yes
    • Catlin: yes
    • Cutter: yes
    • Danielson: excused
    • Daugherty: yes
    • Exum: yes
    • Frizell: yes
    • Gonzales J.: yes
    • Hinrichsen: yes
    • Jodeh: yes
    • Kipp: yes
    • Kirkmeyer: yes
    • Kolker: yes
    • Lindstedt: yes
    • Liston: yes
    • Marchman: yes
    • Mullica: yes
    • Pelton B.: yes
    • Pelton R.: yes
    • Rich: yes
    • Roberts: yes
    • Rodriguez: yes
    • Simpson: excused
    • Snyder: yes
    • Sullivan: yes
    • Wallace: yes
    • Weissman: yes
    • Zamora Wilson: no
    • Coleman: yes
    • President: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1253

Attribution

Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-08-21T21:01:01.173542Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:

Bulk imports for this sessionSession dates and activity

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CO&identifier=HB 1253. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.