Senate committee advances bill reclassifying electric perimeter alarms amid local-control objections

The Senate Local Government & Housing Committee advanced House Bill 10 60 on a 4–3 vote after a day of testimony in which city and county officials urged preservation of local authority and a company representative defended the safety and crime‑deterrent value of electrified perimeter alarm systems.

The bill, presented by Senator Kirkmeyer, would add a statutory definition for “electronic fence detection systems” and say they shall be treated as alarm systems. Sponsors and the bill’s proponents say that change clarifies permitting and helps businesses protect outdoor assets; opponents from the Colorado Municipal League, the Colorado Counties, Inc. and several municipal planning officials said the statutory wording could constrain local governments’ ability to prohibit or impose stricter rules than those that apply to other alarm systems.

“The bill defines electronic fence detection systems in statute,” Heather Stauffer, advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League, told the committee. “We believe that where to allow or not to allow alarm systems with electric shock is a hyper local issue and should continue to be left to the city and town councils to decide with their communities.”

Municipal witnesses described local decisions to deny permits on safety, aesthetics and land‑use grounds. Jennifer Castle, speaking for the Town of Frederick, said her town’s board concluded that the systems “do deliver a shock. It is an electric fence. The proposed location for this fence in Frederick was in the downtown business area where animals and children walk right along a walking path.” John McConnell, Westminster’s planning manager, said his city has long prohibited electric fences “through our land use regulations” and worried the bill would remove an important way to regulate design and compatibility.

County and municipal witnesses focused on specific language they said would functionally tie local permitting to rules for alarm systems and thereby limit how localities treat electric fences differently. Reagan Shane of Colorado Counties, Inc. pointed lawmakers to the section she said “functionally requires us to treat these systems like any other alarm system. Only using the criteria we use to evaluate other alarm systems despite the fact that even the international electrical code has a separate category for them.”

Business testimony in favor came from Luis Farias, government relations director for Amarok, a vendor of the systems. Farias said the devices are used behind a non‑electric perimeter fence, comply with International Electrotechnical Commission standard IEC 60335‑2‑76 and “deter criminal trespassing and theft of property.” He told the committee he had personally touched the system and described the sensation as “uncomfortable. It was not pleasant, but it is safe by design.”

Committee members pressed both sides on practical points — whether systems would be permitted only under alarm codes, how signs and first‑responder access would work, and whether the statute would prevent a locality from banning the devices altogether. Opponents noted municipalities already use considerations such as school adjacency, fire risk and aesthetics when denying permits.

After the testimony the committee moved the bill to the committee of the whole. Senator Kirk Meyer moved the motion and the roll call recorded Kirkmeyer, Liston, Rich and Wallace as voting yes; Winter, Gonzales and the chair recorded no. The clerk announced the motion passed 4–3.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded the motion to move House Bill 10 60 to the committee of the whole; the motion passed 4–3.

What’s next: As advanced, the bill will go to the Senate floor (committee of the whole) for further consideration and possible floor amendments. If enacted, the bill would add a statutory definition for electronic fence detection systems and address how local permitting processes apply to them.