[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6362078,"mediaKeyId","2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa","parentId",2168858,"title","Committee debates House Bill 1060 to classify electronic fence detection systems as alarm systems; bill laid over","audioSeconds",2276,"startMs",10000,"endMs",2286000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa&start=10&end=2286","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa/thumbnail_10000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6362078/Colorado/Committee-debates-House-Bill-1060-to-classify-electronic-fence-detection-systems-as-alarm-systems-bill-laid-over","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362078-0d1bcd74607671561cc9f92ef5eb89c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136111&Signature=WBk0Ap38Zea7D2qCbihO2P8~sMiAE~P3OSsA-7L3h-EJsYXrC839a4ro~ypcjYtKRhEW5F1oi1UpKYcRYGyQ4vmYcvJ2H-o3v9EGQ5JbP~vly62A7XqQJ7s0ZXlPR78IhY5AcBUJ7pf5gYBqFRBrRcl7Kc5aeftFCFiBoznQnjXCfJMHwSnqcls0E8ZoJHjCG5qi9056RBlZgzNowsrExrMtI7CTiPYoTwgWJ6TRmVbAHqmltvfysH1ktZslGQhgdDh2KrIImaikP79yVR2w8d2WLN~Bi5dTbJ4~MC1t8f5ZJXIPJcDZ~yCdrbNmEUXnarQfpFwZNCUEETilcVFPhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 1060, introduced by Representative Clifford, would define certain electronic fence detection systems as alarm systems and require local governments to treat them the same as other alarm systems when regulating permits and inspections. Representative Clifford said the devices are “not fences” and meant to detect intrusion, not to deliver sustained electric shocks.

The measure drew immediate concern from municipal and county associations. Heather Stauffer, advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League, said the CML board “unanimously voted to oppose House Bill 1060” and warned that many local governments currently prohibit alarm systems that include electric shock components in parts of their jurisdictions; she said the bill would limit municipalities’ ability to deny or require additional permits for those systems. Reagan Shane of Colorado Counties Incorporated said counties prefer local collaboration on permitting problems and warned that placing the device definition in state statute removes the ability of counties to quickly fix local permitting issues.

Representative Clifford, the bill sponsor, told the committee he represents an alarm company and that the proposal responds to repeated misclassification by inspectors and local officials. “These devices are not fences,” he said, saying they typically are low‑voltage, battery‑powered detection systems that trip an alarm rather than continuously shock a person. Clifford said the bill’s aim is to ensure consistent classification under the International Electrical Code and avoid situations where fence inspectors, electrical inspectors and code officials disagree and delay installation.

Committee members pressed Clifford on several points: whether the bill would force municipalities to allow systems in residential zones, whether local governments could impose time limits for permit review and whether the measure would remove local height or zoning controls. Clifford repeatedly said the bill does not remove local authority to ban systems or impose aesthetic and site‑specific rules; he offered to accept clarifying language and said he had prepared amendments but would not offer them in the committee that day.

Opponents emphasized local policy differences. Stauffer told the committee that more than 21 municipalities either prohibit electric‑shock alarm systems entirely or limit them in certain zones, and that those communities rely on local processes that balance safety, aesthetics and proximity to schools or homes. Reagan Shane said previous versions of the bill had prompted counties to offer to convene problem jurisdictions before legislation, and that counties prefer collaboration rather than a state statutory standard.

After a brief recess and a short motion sequence in committee, members withdrew a motion to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole and instead moved to lay HB 1060 over for action only at a later date. No final vote on passage or referral occurred in the hearing.

The bill’s sponsors and opponents agreed on one point: they are open to changing language. Representative Clifford said he would work with local governments on clarifying amendments during the second‑reading process, and several committee members urged a version that makes explicit what local governments may and may not require.

If the bill returns, committee members may ask for clearer text about where the devices are regulated, how they relate to existing municipal alarm‑system registration and whether a carve‑out for residential zones (if intended) should be added.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Jan 29, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1060, introduced by Representative Clifford, would classify electronic fence detection systems as alarm equipment and require local governments to treat them the same as other alarm systems when permitting and inspecting.","taxTitle","Transportation, Housing & Local Government, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43545,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362068,"Committee advances bill to expand Independent Ethics Commission jurisdiction to school and special districts, with amendment to use existing appropriations",1363,6331000,7694000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa&start=6331&end=7694","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa/thumbnail_6331000.jpg","/articles/6362068/Colorado/Committee-advances-bill-to-expand-Independent-Ethics-Commission-jurisdiction-to-school-and-special-districts-with-amendment-to-use-existing-appropriations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362068-0e1248899e0a3facdb04325f2eaa4b07/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136111&Signature=AxOwgfaFmYlrysDTxGphxaOtleo8AjvkyjptgNzP9zP3iUE-6b~~FeDn-jI6TANMlarP21BEkawvhysmLoeXHkKvKBsdJA0YugkZM68ZXaz7RPNm42aoEachiiDvbhteTOTrMPePv7Ij2Z7tHoDCvTE9wV~8bY19~LcqTFF1ChStGSL8mYZitepwGqQdefnmXsMXl4sfHY-k63escWU4fQlzDUULXQarZItQgy4q-ntZulCEtLcxTAwnvN-2uZJ7LI2SfUywWJ~x7chiR7GGkTbOTwl74Bc~dFrQgyrp7eLn~j1rxagK2ZL~cEdPBmtU8BFwr-t7b1Gz7tFEWN4rLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1079, sponsored by Representative Story, would expand the jurisdiction of the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) to include elected officials and direct hires in school districts and certain special districts. Representative Story said the change addresses an inconsistency between the Colorado Constitution’s Amendment 41 (Article 29) and state statutes that currently treat some local entities differently.

Supporters described cases they said illustrated ethics gaps at the local level. Parents and community members from several school districts testified about alleged conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and decisions they said had eroded public trust. Chase Cowen of Colorado Common Cause and other advocates urged the committee to allow citizens a neutral, independent avenue to bring non‑frivolous ethics complaints against school boards and metro‑district boards generally not subject to the same oversight as county or municipal officials.

Opponents — including the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Special District Association of Colorado and public‑employee groups — warned the IEC’s docket already contains a high share of complaints dismissed as frivolous and that expansion would create a new unfunded work stream. CASB cautioned that Amendment 41’s constitutional language initially specified counties and municipalities; CASB argued the change should proceed via a constitutional amendment or that voters should weigh the expansion. Special‑district representatives said the proposal creates an unfunded mandate because defending and responding to IEC complaints can carry legal costs.

The IEC’s executive director, Dino Ioannidis, told the committee the agency is neutral on policy but warned that it currently operates with minimal staff (roughly 1.5 FTE) and needs appropriations to handle a materially larger caseload. The sponsor offered an amendment to implement the expansion within existing appropriations and gather caseload data; the amendment passed in committee.

Committee members debated the tradeoffs between expanded independent oversight and the potential for frivolous or weaponized complaints. Representative Story and supporters emphasized that the IEC first screens and dismisses frivolous complaints and that only non‑frivolous matters proceed to investigation. Opponents said the district and board members are often unpaid volunteers and that increased exposure to complaints — even if dismissed — could deter local service.

After discussion the committee voted to advance the measure to Appropriations with a favorable recommendation; the roll call recorded seven members in favor and four opposed. Sponsors said they would use the period after enactment to analyze incoming caseload data and, if necessary, return for appropriations to staff the IEC adequately.","House Bill 1079 would give the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission jurisdiction over elected officials and direct hires in school districts and special districts, bringing those local entities under the IEC’s complaint and investigative authority.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362073,"Committee approves amendment and advances bill requiring updated accessibility standards in building codes",3869,2378000,6247000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa&start=2378&end=6247","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168858-6edd4c2978a7ec9edf8b6d472bbebdaa/thumbnail_2378000.jpg","/articles/6362073/Colorado/Committee-approves-amendment-and-advances-bill-requiring-updated-accessibility-standards-in-building-codes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362073-8c70c60414ce04c0d55d1832cdff60be/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136111&Signature=cZ9rcvNs-~rOh-AKO5GGtb3ZZ~9C5m73qX26iWmy~WF9WT~LRpvVcT13jPgychxDGyi6xoeeUV84B2WIo9n3KiaaZ~FgoA0q4xeVnwjF~bPPsAyJjPa8EqDOvbbJIXasQnmMzLgoJGmFiX69n51FaUkqTna8q8Gm0aJiBU3bH5MzTPLUrpEYmxRbboaspXyo9~0bZxEt5ZD7rNsOMRKRmDEcVx2A8KaLFdhvyLqsI1KAOq2eBTV-d0J64nr5xBYhGfwsqFFfquD7rrHb1DTkOfofO7ep0tP0hzHQzl-vZiJk5wCYmH~8jzSsiFh0ARTbSBQ~lQXswyhe~LrLtiQzjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1030, sponsored by Representative Stewart with Representative Joseph as co‑prime, would require that when a municipality, county or state board adopts or substantially amends its building code, the accessibility chapter be updated to meet or exceed the accessibility standards in one of the two most recent International Building Code (IBC) accessibility provisions.

Sponsors framed the bill as a measure to close the gap between the Americans with Disabilities Act and local building codes. Representative Stewart told the committee that the bill “does not require code updates on municipalities” immediately; instead it requires that accessibility provisions be updated when a jurisdiction undertakes a substantial update of its building code. Representative Joseph said the change is designed to standardize accessibility requirements so local jurisdictions translate ADA obligations into enforceable building code language.

Disability advocates, accessibility professionals and designers testified in support. Jack Johnson, an attorney with Disability Law Colorado, said the bill aligns the “secondary layer” of codes used by builders and code officials with federal ADA requirements and could reduce lawsuits by catching accessibility errors during plan review and inspection. Christina Erickson, a certified ADA specialist, testified that “just because something is ADA compliant does not mean it is accessible,” urging stronger, modernized building‑code standards. Civil designer Dakota Lyman and Carson Covey of Family Voices Colorado described design and lived‑experience examples in which updated code clarity improved outcomes and reduced retrofit costs.

The Colorado Municipal League registered a neutral/oppose posture on principle and asked for clearer language preserving local authority and flexibility; Heather Stauffer, CML’s advocacy manager, told the committee that most municipalities have already adopted the 2021 IBC or plan to do so and that local amendments for wind, snow and other local conditions should remain allowed. The Colorado chapter of the American Institute of Architects said architects support updated model codes but proposed technical amendments to clarify that the bill applies to commercial building codes (IBC) and not single‑family residential code (IRC), and to define what constitutes a “substantial” amendment.

An amendment (L001) was offered and adopted in committee to address stakeholder concerns and to avoid interfering with non‑substantive energy code updates requested by Colorado Counties Inc.; sponsors said they would continue to work with architects and municipal stakeholders on technical language.

After testimony and amendments, Representative Stewart moved House Bill 1030, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll call showing nine members in favor and three opposed. The committee recorded supportive testimony from advocacy groups representing older Coloradans, people with dementia, disability advocates and practitioners who said the change would increase accessible housing and public spaces and that updating accessibility language at the time of a substantial code adoption is a cost‑effective way to prevent future retrofits.

Committee members pressing on cost concerns were told that many jurisdictions already adopt the 2021 IBC and that the requirement applies only at the time of a substantial code update, not as an immediate mandate to adopt the entire IBC. Witnesses said stronger alignment with the IBC and ADA could reduce litigation costs and long‑term retrofit expense by identifying accessibility problems earlier in project design and inspection.

The committee advanced the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation, 9‑3. Sponsors said they would continue to refine technical language with architects and local governments ahead of floor consideration.","House Bill 1030 would require jurisdictions that adopt or substantially amend building codes to update accessibility provisions to match the most recent International Building Code accessibility standards. The bill passed committee as amended and was sent to Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation, 9‑3.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates House Bill 1060 to classify electronic fence detection systems as alarm systems; bill laid over

Committee advances bill to expand Independent Ethics Commission jurisdiction to school and special districts, with amendment to use existing appropriations

Committee approves amendment and advances bill requiring updated accessibility standards in building codes