Although this section directs the trial court to make provisions in the exclusion plan as the court finds fair and equitable and references fair market value as one factor the court should consider, it does not require a trial court to order a city to reimburse a special district for the fair market value of the transferred facilities. City Council v. S. Suburban Park, 160 P.3d 376 (Colo. App. 2007).

Factors to be weighed. The trial court must weight the advantages and disadvantages of an exclusion to determine whether, on balance, the quality of service will not decline as a result of the exclusion. City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Dirs. of Bancroft Fire Prot. Dist., 38 Colo. App. 53, 554 P.2d 714 (1976).

Appellate court bound by trial court's determination. As to whether the services to be provided by Denver in the future would not be of lower quality than those presently provided by the fire protection district, the appellate court is bound by the trial court's determination unless it is "clearly arbitrary and capricious". City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Dirs. of Bancroft Fire Prot. Dist., 38 Colo. App. 53, 554 P.2d 714 (1976).

While the legality of annexation proceedings is being challenged in court, the disputed territory remains in the city subject to city taxes and assessments and is entitled to all city services. City Council v. Bd. of Dirs. of S. Sub. Metro. Recreation & Park Dist., 181 Colo. 334, 509 P.2d 317 (1973).

Property excluded from a fire protection district by a July 12, 1974 order was subject to all property taxes levied by the district for the 1974 taxable year, and for the taxable year 1975 and thereafter, the excluded territory was subject only to a levy for taxes for a pro rata share of the district's indebtedness outstanding on January 1, 1975. City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Dirs., 37 Colo. App. 496, 549 P.2d 1090 (1976).

Applied in City of Westminster v. Hyland Hills Metro. Park & Recreation Dist., 190 Colo. 558, 550 P.2d 337 (1976).