Committee hears bill to require reimbursement for broadband and video facility relocations on road projects

The Kansas Senate Utilities Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 57, which would require reimbursement to communications and video service providers when local, state or federal road projects require modification or relocation of their facilities.

Supporters told the committee the bill would create parity between traditional utilities and newer broadband and video providers and ensure relocations become a budgeted part of a federally or state-funded project. Opponents, including county and municipal officials and the Kansas Department of Transportation, warned the change could increase local costs and property taxes and disrupt current right-of-way practices.

Nick Myers, Assistant Reviser, Kansas Revisor of Statutes, told the committee the bill is sectional. He said section 1 would amend KSA 68-402(b) to require contracts involving federal-aid transportation money to include provisions obligating the contracting county, city or political subdivision to pay the costs to relocate communications facilities. "If relocate or modification to a communications facility is required with 1 of these, Federal aid projects, the owner or operator of that communications facility could then bill the county, the city, or the political subdivision, or the secretary of transportation, for the cost that they incurred to relocate that facility and request reimbursement for that cost," Myers said. The bill requires reimbursement to be paid in full within 90 days of a reimbursement request.

Myers said section 2 would amend KSA 68-415 to require that when the Secretary of Transportation orders a modification or relocation of utility or communications facilities for a state highway project, the secretary must provide for payment of those costs and pay within 90 days of a request. He said the bill would retain the secretarys existing authority to advance monies to an entity showing financial need but would change repayment language so advanced funds are subtracted from the reimbursement request rather than requiring repayment as a separate obligation. Section 3 would amend a Kansas statute covering the Kansas Turnpike Authority to include video service providers and broadband Internet access service providers in the authoritys existing obligation to pay relocation costs for public utilities and pipeline operators.

Dayton Mertie, Senior Manager of Government Affairs for Charter Communications (doing business as Spectrum), said the company supports SB 57 because it would reimburse relocations when local governments receive state or federal money. "If there's a relocation necessary for a project to move forward, we think that relocation should be considered part of the project and therefore must be reimbursed," Mertie said, adding that Charter has invested private capital to expand broadband in Kansas. He summarized the companys position with an analogy: if a landlord is paid by someone else to remodel and requires a renter to move, the renter should not also bear the moving cost alone.

Megan Bottenberg, Director of Government Affairs for Cox Communications, said Cox paid $1,800,000 in forced relocations across Kansas in 2024 and that $1,450,000 of that was due to public works projects; she said those costs were absorbed by the company while it also invested in network upgrades. "If we don't have some type of reimbursement, unfortunately, we'll have to make tough decisions," Bottenberg said, arguing unreimbursed relocations could slow expansion into unserved areas or raise prices.

Opponents warned of budgetary effects. Jay Hall, Deputy Director and General Counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, said most county road projects blend local, state and federal funding and that adding relocation reimbursements would likely increase costs borne by county taxpayers. "Increased costs at the county level are passed on and absorbed by the county property taxpayer," Hall said.

Jolene Savage, Chief Counsel for the Kansas Department of Transportation, told the committee KDOT currently requires utilities placed on state highway right-of-way to occupy it without paying for the land and that when KDOT needs a move, KDOT pays for relocations for utilities off KDOT right-of-way. She provided fiscal figures in written testimony showing that in fiscal 2024 KDOT had 108 utilities move during project lettings, of which 63 were on the right-of-way and paid to move themselves and 45 were off right-of-way and cost KDOT $25,900,000 to relocate. "Any utility ... if it is on state highway right of way, it is there for free," Savage said.

Municipal and county officials raised similar concerns that reimbursing communications providers could expand to other utilities and increase project costs. Kimberly Ginter Swati of Kansas Municipal Utilities argued the bill could "upend the current competitively neutral mandate and right of way management," because municipal utilities that own lines would be treated differently than other entrants in the public right of way. Will Johnson, Butler County administrator, and Spencer Duncan of the League of Kansas Municipalities said local budgets and franchise agreements already govern many relocation negotiations and stressed that most local projects include a local match component funded by property taxes.

No formal action was taken at the hearing. Committee members asked clarifying questions about what qualifies as a communications facility (lines, cables, wires and appurtenant facilities, Myers said), invoicing timing (companies typically invoice after work is completed), and whether the Turnpike Authority was included even though it does not accept federal dollars (Myers said the inclusion covered both state- and federally-funded projects). Committee staff provided written pro- and con-testimony and a fiscal note for SB 57.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 57 with no vote recorded; the bill will be available for further committee consideration per the body's regular process.