Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears bill requiring cost‑sharing agreements for roads abutting two municipalities
Summary
Lawmakers questioned the scope and remedies in HB 2,571, which would require municipalities abutting the same road to enter cost‑sharing agreements for improvements and maintenance. Proponents including the mayor of Bel Aire and municipal staff said the change brings transparency; the bill does not prescribe a remedy or timeline if parties fail to agree.
The Committee on Local Government heard testimony on House Bill 2,571, a measure that would require municipalities that abut a roadway on opposite sides to enter a cost‑sharing agreement allocating responsibility for improvements, operation and maintenance.
The revisor said the proposed subsection to KSA 68‑169 would prevent a municipality from undertaking a material improvement on an abutting road unless allowed by such an agreement. The bill would apply to counties, cities and other political subdivisions that have obligations for road maintenance; school districts and entities without road maintenance responsibilities would not be included. The revisor noted the bill does not establish a timeline for reaching an agreement nor a specific dispute‑resolution mechanism.
Jim Benage, mayor of Bel Aire, described the bill as an effort to achieve "fairness" when one government ends up paying maintenance on a road that serves residents on both sides. Benage cited KSA 12‑520, the statute requiring annexation to include roads, and said his city has experienced cases where annexation left one entity paying while the neighbor benefitted from tax collections.
Mark Detter, deputy city manager of Emporia, said mandatory agreements increase transparency about which government is responsible for maintenance after annexation, and argued the bill helps taxpayers understand who is paying for services.
Committee members asked whether the bill would apply to interstate border roads (revisor: no) and whether courts could be used to compel agreement or to enforce breaches (revisor: potentially, by ordering compliance or as a breach of contract). The revisor reiterated the bill does not include an administrative enforcement timeline or an explicit fallback if negotiations fail.
Next steps: The committee closed testimony on HB 2,571 with no neutral or opponent oral testimony recorded in the hearing transcript.
