Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates UTOPIA financing, limits amendment and circles SB 66 for further work
Summary
Senators debated whether municipal UTOPIA broadband projects should use general obligation bonds (requiring voter approval) or revenue/sales-tax bonds, and whether contracts should allow limited exclusivity for private providers; an amendment to limit exclusivity to nine months and clarify sales-tax pledging sparked dispute and the bill was circled for more negotiation.
Senators spent an extended floor period debating Senate Bill 66, a first-substitute measure aimed at changing how communities can finance UTOPIA and similar municipal broadband projects.
Senator Chris Hickman introduced the substitute, saying it would allow communities participating in the UTOPIA plan to use general obligation (GO) bonds to finance infrastructure and would require a vote of the affected community. He said GO bonds could secure lower interest rates and ensure voter approval of the financing method.
Senator Randall Bramble offered an amendment (Amendment 5) that sought two main changes: to guard against what he described as “double dipping” — the use of the same sales-tax revenue both as bond collateral and as operating revenue — and to shorten any exclusive-contract period for a private provider to nine months after service begins. Bramble said the change would “limit exclusive period of time to 9 months after the first subscriber is signed up” to preserve competition and reduce long-term exclusive monopolies.
Opponents called parts of the amendment fiscally risky or unnecessary. Senator Hickman warned that forcing GO bonds on municipalities could require communities to pledge 100% of debt service and could delay projects by up to a year, potentially increasing costs. He said many local governments rely on a sinking-fund approach tied to property assessments rather than operating revenue.
Other senators urged caution on the exclusivity limit. Senator Thomas asked whether UTOPIA principals had agreed that nine months would be sufficient to attract private partners; Bramble said he had discussed the timeframe with UTOPIA representatives and that they included a nine-month term in their contract drafts. Senator Stevens argued the exclusivity provision gave an unfair head start to one private provider and was “not good business.”
The floor also debated the practical effect of allowing sales-tax revenues to be pledged to bonds. Bramble and supporters said the amendment simply requires municipalities to appropriate (set aside) the sales-tax revenue in the general-fund budgeting process rather than diverting operating funds ex post; opponents said relying on operating income for bond sinking funds was poor fiduciary practice.
After extended discussion and recognition that stakeholders needed more negotiation (including local officials, incumbent providers, and UTOPIA representatives), Senator Bramble withdrew his immediate amendment and moved to circle the bill for further work. The motion to circle SB 66 passed.
What happens next: SB 66 was circled to allow sponsors and stakeholders to reconcile concerns about bond type, sales-tax pledging, and exclusivity before returning to the floor. No final financing change or vote on the underlying policy was adopted during this session.
