Senate committee advances bill defining electric perimeter systems as alarm systems after split testimony

House Bill 25‑1060, which redefines certain electric perimeter detection systems as alarm systems and directs permitting to local alarm-system processes, moved out of the Senate Local Government and Housing Committee on a 4‑3 vote after more than three hours of testimony and questions.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Lori Kirkmeyer (Senator Kirkmeyer) opened the hearing by saying the reengrossed bill is intended to preserve local control while classifying the devices as alarm systems rather than fences.

Municipal and county associations, mayors and planning officials urged the committee to reject the bill. Heather Stauffer, advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League, told the committee that CML and its members oppose the bill and “would respectfully ask for your no vote on the bill.” Stauffer said many municipalities do not treat alarm systems with electric‑shock components the same as other alarm systems and that “this bill would limit their ability to regulate these alarm systems.”

Jennifer Castle, speaking for the town of Frederick, said her town recently reviewed an application for the systems described in the bill and rejected it. Castle said the trustees worried about public safety, signage language for non‑English speakers, aesthetics in downtown areas and emergency‑responder access. John McConnell, planning manager for the City of Westminster, said Westminster prohibits electric fences through land‑use regulations and that such devices are inconsistent with the community’s design standards.

Supporters, including representatives of Amarok, the company that markets the devices, said the systems are safety technologies that deter commercial property crime. Luis Farias, Amarok’s government relations director, said the devices comply with International Electrotechnical Commission standards (IEC 60335‑2‑76) and asserted they are a proven, nonlethal deterrent for theft from commercial and industrial properties. Farias told senators his group has seen permitting delays as long as 235 days on average and said 1 customer waited more than 1,000 days for approval.

Committee members pressed witnesses on specifics. Senators asked whether classifying the systems as alarm systems would force local governments to permit them and on the technical and safety differences between a low‑voltage electric perimeter detector and law‑enforcement tasers. Stauffer testified that the devices emit about 7,000 volts and that some municipalities had used fire safety as a basis for denying permits. Westminster’s McConnell described how land‑use review controls fence height, materials and location through development‑plan approvals.

After discussion, the committee voted to advance the bill to the Committee of the Whole. The roll call as read into the record was: Kirk Meyer (Aye), Liston (Aye), Rich (Aye), Wallace (Aye); Winter (No), Gonzales (No), “Mister chair” (No). The clerk announced the motion passed 4‑3. The committee did not adopt any floor amendments during the hearing.

The bill would: define “electric fence detection system,” require that such systems be located behind a nonelectric perimeter fence or wall at least five feet tall, and direct local governments to impose installation and inspection requirements within their alarm permitting processes. Opponents said that language can have the practical effect of limiting a local government’s ability to prohibit or place additional restrictions on systems with electric‑shock components; proponents said the bill preserves local authority while creating a predictable statewide definition and permitting path.

The committee record contains testimony about public‑safety, aesthetics and liability concerns as well as industry claims of long permitting delays. No final floor language was enacted in committee; the bill will move to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration on the floor.

(Reporting note: quotations and attributions above are taken from the committee transcript.)

Ending: The committee vote sends House Bill 25‑1060 to the next Senate stage; senators and stakeholders indicated they expect additional amendments or legal review before final floor action.