CO Code § 38-5.5-107 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal|Article 5.5 - Rights-of-Way: Telecommunications Providers|§ 38-5.5-107. Permissible Taxes, Fees, and Charges

     No political subdivision shall levy a tax, fee, or charge for any right or privilege of engaging in a business or for use of a public highway other than:   A license fee or tax authorized under section 31-15-501 (1)(c), C.R.S., or article XX of the state constitution; and    A street or public highway construction permit fee, to the extent that such permit fee applies to all persons seeking a construction permit.       All fees and charges levied by a political subdivision shall be reasonably related to the costs directly incurred by the political subdivision in providing services relating to the granting or administration of permits. Such fees and charges also shall be reasonably related in time to the occurrence of such costs. In any controversy concerning the appropriateness of a fee or charge, the political subdivision shall have the burden of proving that the fee or charge is reasonably related to the direct costs incurred by the political subdivision. All costs of construction shall be borne by the telecommunications provider or broadband provider.         Any tax, fee, or charge imposed by a political subdivision shall be competitively neutral among telecommunications providers and broadband providers.    Nothing in this article or in article 32 of title 31, C.R.S., shall invalidate a tax or fee imposed if such tax or fee cannot legally be imposed upon another telecommunications provider, broadband provider, or service because of the requirements of state or federal law or because such other provider is exempt from taxation or lacks a taxable nexus with the political subdivision imposing the tax or fee.    If a political subdivision imposes a tax on a telecommunications provider or broadband provider and such tax does not apply to other providers of comparable telecommunications services or broadband services due to the language of the ordinance or resolution that imposes the tax, then the governing body of the political subdivision shall take one of the following two courses of action:   If it can do so without violating the election requirements of section 20 of article X of the state constitution, the governing body shall amend the ordinance or resolution that imposes the tax so as to extend the tax to providers of comparable telecommunications services or broadband services; or    If an election is required under section 20 of article X of the state constitution, the governing body shall cause an election to be held in accordance with said section 20 to authorize the extension of the tax to providers of comparable telecommunications services or broadband services. If the extension of the tax is not approved by the voters at such election, then the existing tax shall no longer apply to the providers that had been subject to the tax immediately before the election.          Taxes, fees, and charges imposed shall not be collected through the provision of in-kind services by telecommunications providers or broadband providers, nor shall any political subdivision require the provision of in-kind services as a condition of consent to use a highway.    The terms of all agreements between political subdivisions and telecommunications providers or broadband providers regarding use of highways shall be matters of public record and shall be made available upon request pursuant to article 72 of title 24, C.R.S.    Nothing in this section affects the manner in which the property tax administrator values a public utility under article 4 of title 39, C.R.S.    Nothing in this article affects the ability of a political subdivision to require and grant a cable franchise to a cable operator seeking to provide cable television service within the political subdivision and to obtain any consideration or impose any conditions in a cable franchise, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law.    As used in this section, “public highway” or “highway” as otherwise defined in section 38-5.5-102 (6) does not include excess and remainder rights-of-way under the department of transportation's jurisdiction.      History. Source: L. 96: Entire article added, p. 301, § 1, effective April 12. L. 2014: (1)(b), (2), (3), and (4) amended and (5), (6), and (7) added,(HB 14-1327), ch. 149, p. 507, § 5, effective August 6. L. 2017: (7) amended,(HB 17-1193), ch. 143, p. 480, § 11, effective July 1.    Cross references:   For the short title (“Broadband Deployment Act”) in HB 14-1327, see section 1 of chapter 149, Session Laws of Colorado 2014.   ANNOTATION   Section prohibiting municipality from exacting a fee from telecommunications providers for the use of public rights-of-way, beyond costs directly incurred by the municipality, does not authorize a taking of property for which the municipality would be entitled to compensation by inverse condemnation under article II, § 15 of the state constitution. A municipality controls public rights-of-way in its governmental capacity, and such property is not “private” for purposes of a takings analysis. City & County of Denver v. Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d 748 (Colo. 2001).   Applied in Plains Coop. v. Washington Bd. of County Comm'rs, 226 P.3d 1189 (Colo. App. 2009).