Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 2544 creating relocation reimbursement fund for communications providers; members press on funding and equity
Summary
HB 2544 would create a state relocation reimbursement assistance fund to compensate eligible communications providers for municipal requests to relocate facilities in public rights of way, seeded by a $2,000,000 annual transfer from SGF (premium tax revenue). Advocates for broadband argued the fund mitigates unanticipated forced‑relocation costs; municipal and county witnesses cautioned about precedent and local impacts.
The Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications took testimony on House Bill 2544, which would establish a Relocation Reimbursement Assistance Fund to reimburse eligible communications service providers for costs of relocating facilities in public rights‑of‑way when the move follows a municipality’s order or request. The bill authorizes the state treasurer to administer the new fund, requires the treasurer to accept annual applications and, if money is insufficient, to prorate awards based on applicants’ relative costs. The bill would begin with a $2,000,000 transfer from the State General Fund (funds identified as coming from premium taxes on insurance companies) and specifies that transfer as an annual demand transfer; the bill was drafted to take effect upon publication (07/01/2026).
Industry witnesses including Dayton Murty (Charter Communications) and Megan Battenberg (Cox Communications) testified in support. Charter said Spectrum serves about 100,000 Kansas customers and described forced relocations as an unanticipated ‘‘hidden fee’’ that diverts capital from network expansion. Cox provided concrete cost examples: a two‑mile relocation that cost $468,000 (contract labor and materials) and a Topeka viaduct project that cost about $400,000 in 2025. Cox reported aggregate relocation costs in Kansas of roughly $2.8 million for 2025 and said typical lead time for municipal relocation requests is 60–100 days.
Supporters said the $2,000,000 seed and ongoing premium‑tax funding would mitigate unanticipated costs and preserve capital budgets for expansion. Charter and Cox urged the committee to recommend the bill favorably but acknowledged the fund likely would not cover all relocation costs statewide.
Committee members and municipal witnesses probed equity and precedent. Representatives asked whether the bill treats all utilities the same; proponents said the policy intentionally distinguishes rate‑regulated utilities (which can recover costs through rate cases) from non‑rate‑regulated cable and telecom providers that pay franchise fees. Representative Carmichael pressed whether unregulated companies could receive public funds and then reallocate their internal capital budgets—potentially increasing shareholder distributions—without guarantees funds would be reinvested in expansion; Charter deferred to legislative drafting and said it would discuss offline how to craft language to ensure the public purpose.
Local government witnesses (League of Kansas Municipalities, Kansas Association of Counties, municipal utilities) said the present bill represents a negotiated compromise compared with prior proposals, but cautioned against expanding the program beyond the bill's current scope because franchise fee distributions are small in rural counties and expanded liability could shift burdens to local taxpayers. Staff said written testimony includes city of Overland Park detail and highway engineers submitted separate opposing input.
The committee requested a fiscal note and historical funding information for the interlibrary loan and relocation topics and flagged the SGF transfer and franchise fee mechanics for follow‑up. The hearing closed without a committee vote.
