House Bill 1029, which would expand municipal authority over land a city acquires outside its municipal limits to include open space and natural areas, was the subject of an extended Colorado State Senate debate and was laid over for further work.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Kipp, moved HB 1029 on the floor and said the measure “expands the authority of our municipalities to have control over the open spaces and natural areas outside of their areas so that they can send a ranger and make sure that people aren't acting inappropriately on those lands.” The sponsor asked senators to pass the bill as written and noted the intent was to allow municipalities to protect investments in lands they acquire.

Opponents cautioned that the change could have statewide consequences. Senator Bazely warned the chamber that the Legislature should craft laws of statewide application and scrutinized how giving municipalities extra authority could affect counties where those lands are located. Senator Rich said the bill risked creating “conflicting codes and uses between municipalities,” diluting county authority and upsetting intergovernmental collaborations.

Senator Kirk-Meyer offered amendment L013 to require municipalities to enter into intergovernmental agreements before acquiring lands outside their limits and to prevent municipal regulations from conflicting with the land-use powers of the county where the land sits. Kirk-Meyer described the amendment as a requirement that cities “give a heads up” and “enter into an intergovernmental agreement,” arguing it would reduce boundary and tax disputes and protect county land-use authority. He cited a dispute in Weld County over a Burlington Northern site near County Road 8 and I-76 as an example of where early coordination matters.

Supporters of the amendment argued that mandatory intergovernmental agreements would encourage cooperation and prevent territorial disputes; opponents, including proponents of the underlying bill and representatives of municipal interests, said the amendment would disrupt well‑established local practices and raise practical enforcement questions, particularly around the use of limited‑commission rangers versus post‑certified officers. Senator Kipp and others told the Senate that municipalities use limited‑commission rangers to address lower‑level municipal code violations in natural areas and that requiring post‑certified officers would create trade‑offs in cost and public trust.

After extended discussion and an exchange of proposed fixes, Senator Kirk‑Meyer withdrew amendment L013. Majority Leader Rodriguez then moved to lay HB 1029 over until March 6 to allow additional negotiations and to retain the bill’s place on the calendar. The motion to lay over was agreed to; the committee of the whole later reported that HB 1029 was laid over until 2025‑03‑06, retaining its calendar position.

Discussion on HB 1029 centered on three consistent practical concerns: (1) the potential for municipal acquisition to remove property from the tax rolls and thereby affect county revenue; (2) uncertainty about which entity would have policing or regulatory authority on acquired lands (municipal rangers, municipal police, or county sheriffs); and (3) the adequacy of existing intergovernmental agreements and annexation tools to resolve cross‑boundary management problems. Senators urged local governments to use IGAs where possible and asked for clearer statutory guardrails where acquisitions cross jurisdictions.

The Senate did not vote to adopt the underlying bill on March 5; the matter was laid over for further consideration.

Votes at a glance: the Committee of the Whole later reported by a roll call of 34 ayes, 0 no that the committee’s report was adopted; separately, HB 1029 was explicitly laid over to 03/06/2025 and retains its place on the calendar.