Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Restrictive Covenants University Property topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate committee hears bill to void old restrictive covenants tied to university land, proponents say it would clear way for Wichita internet exchange

2433065 · February 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Senate committee heard testimony on SB194, which would void certain mid-20th-century restrictive covenants on property owned by state educational institutions. Proponents said the change is needed to allow construction of an internet exchange point at Wichita State University after a racially restrictive covenant was discovered on the site.

The Senate committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 194, which would declare void certain restrictive covenants on real property owned by state educational institutions and make those covenants unenforceable as against public policy.

The bill, as described by committee staff, would void covenants that limit property to single-family residence use or that contain provisions restricting ownership or tenancy by race for property owned by institutions identified by reference to 76-711. Proponents told the committee the legislation is narrowly targeted to a mid-20th-century time window and would apply going forward if enacted.

“Senate Bill 194 voids as against public policy. Certain restrictions on real property owned by a state educational institution,” committee staff member Charles told the panel, explaining that the covered institutions include the state regents' universities by reference to 76-711. The bill’s draft text ties the measure to covenants established in a specified historical period and sets the bill’s effective date, if passed, as July 1 of the year it becomes law.

Tom Cox, vice president of Connected Nation Inc., testified as a proponent and said the bill arose from a practical problem: a racially restrictive covenant from the 1950s discovered during due diligence on a Wichita State University parcel intended for an internet exchange point. “We discovered that there was a an egregiously racist and restrictive covenant from the 19 fifties,” Cox said.

Cox described the internet exchange project as a nonprofit partnership with Wichita State University supported by a $5,000,000 grant from the Department of Commerce tied to an $80,000,000 federal NTIA grant. He said the exchange point would allow local traffic to interconnect in Wichita rather than routing out of state, reducing latency and lowering transit costs for smaller regional internet service providers. “I often compare it to imagine that if the Internet exchange points are airports,” Cox said.

Cox told the committee the university donated a 40-year ground lease for a parcel at 20 First Street because of existing fiber infrastructure on that site; he said other available parcels were either too costly or already allocated to other projects. He also said the planning commission and a district advisory board have approved the conditional use permit and that the city council was scheduled to vote next Tuesday on final local approvals.

Committee members raised neighborhood concerns about aesthetics and noise. Senator Clace pressed Cox on the building’s appearance; Cox said the structure will be a reinforced modular facility and that the project team plans professional landscaping and design work with Wichita State to make the site fit the campus. On noise and emissions, Cox said the exchange is a low-power interconnection facility, not a large data center: “This is a 3 50 kilowatt facility, which is effectively a similar power profile to your home,” he said, adding that generator tests would be scheduled to minimize disturbance.

Committee staff also identified a drafting issue in the bill’s subsections and recommended language changes to make clear whether a narrow historical window in subsection B is intended to limit the broader language in subsection A. The chair asked staff to work with the reviser’s office and counsel to prepare an amendment.

No formal vote was taken in the hearing. The committee agreed to work with the bill author and the reviser’s office on technical changes and to move the bill forward for consideration after those adjustments.