Committee hears bill to void racially restrictive covenants tied to Wichita Internet exchange project

Topeka — The House Committee on Local Government held an informational hearing on legislation tied to a Wichita State University broadband project on [date not specified], hearing from Connected Nation and university partners about a restrictive land covenant that proponents say prevents construction of an Internet exchange point (IXP) on university-owned property.

The bill discussed is Senate Bill 194, which is nearly identical to House Bill 2,282; both would declare certain racially discriminatory restrictive covenants on land conveyances void and unenforceable when the land is owned by a state educational institution. Committee members were told the measure as amended in the Senate would apply only to covenants dated between Jan. 1, 1948, and Dec. 31, 1958, and that the Senate amendment also would make the law effective upon publication in the Kansas Register. The Committee did not take formal action at the informational hearing; members said they expect to consider SB 194 at a formal hearing on Wednesday.

Why it matters

Proponents said the immediate purpose of the narrow legislative change is to clear title issues on a Wichita State parcel where a 1,500-square-foot Internet exchange point is planned. Tom Cox, vice president for Connected Nation, told the committee his organization received a $5,000,000 ARPA reimbursement grant to build the facility on Wichita State land and discovered last summer that an “egregiously restrictive” covenant, including racial restrictions and limits on non–single-family uses, applies to the parcel. Cox said the covenant appears to affect roughly 30 parcels, that many owners are held by out-of-state limited liability companies and that removing the covenant by private agreement would be effectively impossible.

What proponents told the committee

Cox said the IXP would let local Internet service providers exchange traffic inside Kansas rather than routing nearly all traffic out of state — largely to facilities in Kansas City, Mo., and Denver — which he said increases costs, raises latency and reduces resiliency for Kansas networks. "The state of Kansas is one of 14 states that does not have an IXP in its border," Cox said. "This is where the physical interconnection of different service providers happen." He described the site as already approved by the Wichita City Council and the local planning commission and said the project is modular and factory-built, which proponents expect will shorten construction time.

Cox told lawmakers the parcel’s covenant was signed in 1951 and that Connected Nation compiled nine notarized homeowner signatures in favor of removing the covenant but could not reach enough owners to clear it by private means. He said alternative parcels either lacked the necessary fiber proximity or were already committed and that the project also ties into a larger federal middle-mile award received by the state. "We discovered last summer that no one, including the university, was aware that there was an egregiously restrictive land covenant," Cox said.

Questions from legislators

Members pressed for specifics about the covenant, ownership and timing. Jason Long, the committee reviser, explained that both bills would declare qualifying covenants void as against public policy under section 1 of the measure and noted the Senate amendment narrowed the effective scope to the 1948–1958 date range and set effectiveness upon publication in the Kansas Register.

Representative Pyshny asked who brought the bill and whether it was on behalf of a specific institution; Long and Cox said the problem was raised on behalf of Wichita State University. Representative Pizzing asked why the bill was drafted to reference "state educational institutions" instead of naming Wichita State; Cox and Long said the statutory definition of the regents institutions already encompasses the state universities and that other universities had no objection. Representative Collins and others asked technical questions about the IXP’s resiliency, capability for dark fiber and backup power; Cox described dual feed approaches, an on-site diesel generator (with underground fuel storage) and ring topology options to avoid single points of failure.

Funding, schedule and dependencies

Cox said the IXP received a roughly $5,000,000 grant through ARPA on a reimbursement basis; he told the committee the project team has expended funds but not yet submitted reimbursements. He said the ARPA funds have an expiration (testimony placed the ARPA expiration year as 2026) and that the project team plans to break ground soon to preserve eligibility. Cox also referenced an approximately $80,000,000 federal middle-mile National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) grant that would connect the Wichita IXP to Kansas City and points west; he said relocating the facility would create complications for that build. Representative Wolf asked directly about the ARPA deadline; Cox said the project's modular, prebuilt construction helps the team keep on schedule.

History and legal details

Long, the reviser, said House Bill 2,282 draws similar language to SB 194 and that HB 2282 singles out covenants found in conveyance documents dated from Jan. 1, 1948, through Dec. 31, 1958. The Senate committee amended SB 194 to adopt the same date restriction and to make the law effective upon publication in the Kansas Register. Cox told the committee the specific covenant on the Wichita parcel dates to 1951 and that proponents have not found other parcels in Kansas that meet both the racial-discrimination and date-range criteria.

Outcome and next steps

The informational hearing produced no committee vote. Committee members said they will hold a formal hearing and likely consider action on SB 194 at a session scheduled for Wednesday. Cox said SB 194 previously passed the Kansas Senate 40–0; the Senate amendment and the House companion will be part of the committee’s review on Wednesday. Cox also said he will provide committee members a copy of the scanned covenant document for review.

Limitations of the record

The committee hearing was informational only; no final vote was recorded in this session. Several technical timeline details were described by witnesses (including when the covenant could be privately reviewed and the ARPA reimbursement schedule) and were represented in testimony; the committee discussion did not record exact dates for subsequent committee action beyond the planned Wednesday hearing.

For follow-up

Committee members asked witnesses to provide the covenant document and additional photos and engineering details about the modular facility. The committee chair closed the session and said members would reconvene on Wednesday for a brief hearing and possible action on SB 194.