Supporters of a bill to speed up permitting for wireless towers throughout Colorado have fixed a potentially fatal flaw that was added into the proposal and dispatched it to Gov. Jared Polis, moves they expect will culminate in the Democrat signing the measure into law.
House Bill 1056 is arguably the most significant legislative proposal that came out of an interim committee to study cell-phone connectivity. Such connectivity can be poor not only in sparsely populated rural areas but in quickly growing areas with infill and suburban projects, and telecommunications companies blame local permitting that can slow their efforts for months or even years.
The bill, sponsored by Democratic Reps. Meghan Lukens of Steamboat Springs and Jennifer Bacon of Denver, would require local governments to make decisions on proposed new cell towers within 150 days and on additions to existing towers within 90 days. The idea is that cities and counties can reject tower applications if they want but cannot keep companies hanging indefinitely, which makes Colorado a less attractive place for firms like AT&T to invest and does nothing to close cell-connectivity gaps.
Local-government advocates complain that HB 1056 lets cell towers jump the permitting line over other projects, and they added an amendment in the Senate that would allow delays in the proposed “shot clock” for cities and counties to consider other permits first. Rep. Matt Soper, a Delta Republican and House cosponsor, called the amendment “kind of a cute attempt to make the bill worthless,” and he and other members of the interim committee said it had to be fixed if the bill were to have any impact.
How the compromise was reached
So, in a conference committee that met on April 9, legislators limited the amount of time that local governments could delay consideration of wireless permits to consider other types of permits to 45 days. The conference committee also clarified that nothing relieves a local government’s obligation to comply with the 150-day federal timeline to consider wireless permits, though sponsors admitted a state law is needed because that provision is so rarely enforced.
Colorado state Sen. Dylan Roberts asks the Senate to concur with changes to his bill on wireless permitting.
On April 10, the Senate turned around and passed the new version of the bill with the 45-day tolling limit by a vote of 29-4, a margin that reflected slightly more support than the bill’s original 28-5 passage without the limit. And the House on Tuesday followed with a 47-17 repassage — a significantly greater show of support than its original 35-28 passage of a bill without any tolling allowance for local governments.
“We are still keeping that tolling language,” cosponsoring Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, told his chamber. “We are just putting a few guardrails around it so that it doesn’t get out of hand. And we are still honoring the intent of the bill, which is to get our constituents better cell-phone coverage.”
Although Colorado is known as a national technology leader, both telecommunications industry leaders and legislators argue that it suffers in too many places from spotty coverage that can discourage people from working or living in an area. That is true both in the rural areas that Lukens and Soper represent that can have long stretches without service and in the urban area Bacon represents, where she said houses are going up faster than cell towers can pop up to support them.
Why there is a battle over cell towers
Supporters like AT&T and the CTIA cellular-industry association said these gaps come too often from local governments taking inordinate amounts of time to consider permit applications. Such uncertainty makes Colorado less attractive for investment and threatens to leave too many areas without reliable cell service, which is a particular detriment to economic development, industry leaders and legislators said.
Local-government leaders, however, argued that officials need to carefully consider wireless-permit applications to ensure that the cell towers are not creating safety hazards or aesthetic problems and that they fit into the structure of their communities. And they must do this with limited resources while also considering permits for housing, energy projects and other needs, which they feel shouldn’t be put on the backburner just because a wireless company wants to put up a tower.
Wireless companies have not commented on the details of the final bill, but sponsors indicated that they’ve landed on a compromise that should work for both industry and governments. That compromise got wide bipartisan backing in the Senate and cross-aisle support and opposition in the House, with “no” votes coming from Republicans who support local over state control and Democrats who once served in local government.
The bill is expected to land on Polis’ desk in the coming days. After that, he will have 10 days to sign or veto it in advance of the May 7 adjournment of the session.