Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation Council Positions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broomfield council opposes telecom permit bill, backs amendments on faith-land housing and transportation bills
Summary
City council voted Feb. 11 to formally oppose a state bill limiting local control over telecom permits, adopt an "oppose unless amended" stance on a bill allowing development on faith and educational land, and seek amendments to a transportation bill that staff says would create an unfunded local mandate.
BROOMFIELD, Colo. — The Broomfield City Council on Feb. 11 voted to take formal positions on three Colorado bills after a staff legislative update that flagged local-control and fiscal concerns.
Council members voted unanimously, 9-0, to oppose House Bill 25-1056, which staff said would restrict local permitting of wireless telecommunications facilities by starting a permit “shot clock” when a telecom indicates intent to submit an application. Denae Broillard, Broomfield’s director of strategic initiatives and governmental affairs, told the council the bill “puts priority on telecom permits over other utilities” and described the shot-clock mechanism: “a telecom can submit a permit and the shot clock starts when they...and then a local government has X many of days to approve that or it automatically gets approved.”
The council also approved an “oppose unless amended” position, 7-2, on House Bill 25-1169, often called “YIGBY” (Yes In God’s Backyard), which would allow housing developments as a use by right on land owned by places of worship, school districts and universities. Staff flagged several concerns, including limits on local review, lack of required community notice and infrastructure questions. City Manager Hoffman told council, “Not only is there not a council process, but there’s not a notification for community either.” Staff asked the council to seek amendments that would preserve local governments’ ability to deny projects when infrastructure is inadequate.
On Senate Bill 25-3030, titled to “increase transportation mode choice, reduce emissions,” the council voted 9-0 to take an amend position. Broillard said the bill would require local governments with populations of 25,000 or more — which includes the City and County of Broomfield — to produce a transportation mode choice implementation plan and create a centralized repository of existing walking, biking and transit assets. Sarah Grant, the city’s transportation manager (quoted by staff), and Broillard told council the measure, as drafted, would be an unfunded mandate that could divert staff time from other local projects.
Why it matters: Council members said the bills could affect local control, require staff time or create new local costs. Broillard noted the state is facing a large budget deficit and that bills with large fiscal notes may struggle in the session; nevertheless staff asked for council direction on the three items flagged as directly affecting Broomfield.
Details and council discussion: Broillard walked council through the city’s bill tracker and said staff is coordinating with the law firm Bowditch & Cassell to monitor bills and add positions when needed. For HB 25-1056, Broillard recommended opposition because the bill “puts restrictions on local governments and puts priority on telecom permits over other utilities.” Council members asked about notice, community engagement, and precedent from other jurisdictions. On YIGBY, council members said they wanted the city’s concerns—particularly about infrastructure and community notice—reflected in any position.
Council members emphasized the trade-offs. Council Member Lim, who moved the amend position on the transportation bill, said the city wants the information such a plan would provide but “there is room to support some of the work that is being done on this bill” only if the burden on local governments is reduced. Mayor Pro Tem Schaff, who seconded motions during the discussion, said he has spoken with bill sponsors and hoped amendments would preserve community input.
Votes at a glance
- HB 25-1056, Local government permitting wireless telecommunications facilities — Council action: Opposed (staff recommendation adopted). Outcome: Passed 9-0. Staff justification: local-control impacts, shot-clock permitting; recommended by staff as opposed.
- HB 25-1169, Housing developments on faith and educational land ("YIGBY") — Council action: Oppose unless amended (staff recommendation adopted). Outcome: Passed 7-2. Staff justification: lack of required local review and community notice; requested amendment to preserve local denial authority when infrastructure is insufficient.
- SB 25-3030, Increase transportation mode choice; reduce emissions — Council action: Amend position (staff recommendation adopted). Outcome: Passed 9-0. Staff justification: bill could create an unfunded mandate requiring a centralized repository of data and five-year plan coordination that overlaps existing local planning work.
What comes next: Staff will continue monitoring bill drafts and return to council if amendments are proposed or if other bills rise to a level that staff judges to have a significant local impact. Broillard said the city’s public bill tracker will be updated as staff and Bowditch & Cassell add notes and positions. Council members asked staff to continue coordinating with regional partners and their state representatives.
Ending note: Councilors stressed that taking positions does not directly change state law but signals local concerns and gives staff authorization to weigh in with legislative contacts and stakeholder groups as bills move through the session.
