Vote NO on HB25-1060
Electronic Fence Detection Systems

WHAT DOES THE BILL DO?

HB25-1060 proposes to reclassify certain electric fence security systems as “alarm systems” and limits local governments’ ability to deny permits for their use. This bill would undermine municipalities’ authority to regulate these systems based on public safety, aesthetics, and community values

BACKGROUND

• AMAROK electric fence security systems (amarok.com) include features such as an alarm and a high-voltage electric fence delivering a 7,000-volt shock upon contact.
• At least 21 Colorado municipalities, including, Colorado Springs, Monument, Durango, Lakewood, Mead,Westminster, Wheat Ridge, Grand Junction, Arvada, Fort Collins, Sheridan, Loveland, Littleton, Castle Rock, Castle Pines, Parker, Frederick, Lone Tree, Lochbuie, Fountain, and Englewood, limit permits, or have denied permits for electrified alarm systems for a number of reasons including public safety, community values, and
  aesthetic concerns.

CONCERNS

• The bill requires electronic fence detection systems to be regulated in a manner consistent with requirements for other residential alarm systems, removing the ability of local governments to regulate and specifically deny permits for electric fence alarm systems.
• Local governments are best positioned to evaluate whether these systems align with their communities’ character, safety standards, and comprehensive plans.
• Municipalities may reasonably oppose the presence of electrified fences in residential or mixed-use areas, near open spaces or schools, even if non-lethal.
• The installation of electric fences may conflict with community values and aesthetic standards, potentially creating nuisance issues and diminishing neighborhood appeal.
• These municipalities’ decisions were made through thoughtful public processes that considered the impacts on their communities.
• Colorado municipalities have demonstrated a willingness to work with landowners to find security solutions that meet safety and aesthetic standards if they do not allow electrified fences.

CASE STUDIES OF MUNICIPAL DENIALS

TOWN OF PARKER
AMAROK approached Parker in 2022-2023 with a proposal to install their electric fence system.

• Concerns raised included land use issues related to aesthetics, community character, nuisance, and safety. The proposed site was near open space and residential areas.
• Despite Parker’s willingness to collaborate on a non-electrified alarm system, the electric fence company was unwilling to compromise, and the permit was denied.

TOWN OF FREDERICK
The electric fence company sought a waiver from Frederick’s Land Use Code, which prohibits electric fences, requiring Board of Trustees approval. Reasons for denial included:

• Detriment to public good due to the electric shock feature and precedent-setting implications.
• Lack of hardship making compliance infeasible.
• Conflict with Frederick’s Comprehensive Plan and design standards.
• Safety concerns for the community, especially given the absence of police calls for theft at the location in question.
• Frederick supported an alternative taller fence solution that met code requirements.

CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Englewood’s Code of Ordinances (EMC §16-8-6.E.2) explicitly prohibits electrically charged
fences in all zoning classifications, reflecting community safety priorities.

YOUR OPPOSITION IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED

CML urges legislators to vote no on HB25-1060 to protect the authority of local governments to make decisions in the best interests of their residents.

CONTACT

Heather Stauffer, CML legislative advocacy manager