SESSION OF 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 2806
As Amended by House Committee on Energy,
Utilities and Telecommunications
Brief*
HB 2806, as amended, would establish certain rights
and limitations on the use of county public right-of-way by
telecommunication, broadband, and video service providers.
The bill would resemble existing non-discrimination and
neutrality provisions for the use of city public right-of-way.
Findings and Definitions
The bill would make findings on the importance of
telecommunications facilities and would use the definition of
“public right-of-way” as found in KSA 17-1902, with the
additional exemption of any real property, structures, or
facilities under the ownership, control, or jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Transportation. The bill would define “provider”
similarly to KSA 17-1902.
Provider Rights
Under the bill, local exchange carriers,
telecommunications carriers, and video service providers
would have the right to construct, maintain, and operate
poles, conduit, cable, switches, and related appurtenances
and facilities along, across, upon, and under any public right-
of-way in a Kansas county, as long as any rights issued by
the State to a video service provider are not invalidated by
such an action. Such equipment and facilities would be
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org required to not obstruct or hinder the usual travel or public
safety on public ways or the legal use by other utilities or
providers.
Counties
The bill would require counties to treat similarly situated
providers in a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral
manner regarding:
●Permit fees;
●Forms and filings required for a permit application;
●Time in approving or denying a permit; and
●Options for waivers of such permit fees, forms, and
filing.
Counties would be prohibited from enacting or erecting
any discriminatory, unreasonable condition, requirement, or
barrier for entry into or use of the public right-of-way by a
provider.
Fees
Counties would be authorized to impose only the
following fees, provided the fees are non-discriminatory,
competitively neutral, and related to the county’s reasonable,
actual, and verifiable costs of managing the public right-of-
way:
●A construction permit fee to compensate the county
for reasonable administrative expenses for issuing,
processing, and verifying the permit application;
●An excavation permit fee for each pavement cut to
recover the direct and reasonable costs associated
2- 2806 with the provider’s construction and repair activity;
and
●An inspection fee to recover all reasonable costs
associated with the county’s inspection of the
provider’s work.
Counties would be expressly prohibited from assessing
additional fees for occupying the public right of way.
Counties would authorize video service providers to
offset any fees and charges against payment of any video
service provider fee imposed pursuant to KSA 12-2024.
Damages
If a provider causes damages while working in the public
right-of-way, the bill would authorize a county to assess
against any provider costs associated with repairing and
restoring the public right-of-way due to the damages.
Additionally, the bill would authorize a county to require a
provider to furnish a performance bond to ensure the
appropriate and timely performance of construction and
maintenance activities.
Upon request by a provider, a county would be required
to provide an accounting of the costs that are the basis for
any such fee charged.
Other Provisions
The bill would also prohibit a provider from entering into
a contract with a county to provide a product or service that
the provider’s business does not actually sell or provide.
Any ordinance pertaining to the use of the county public
right of way in effect prior to the the effective date of the bill
would be deemed to not conflict with the provision of the act.
3- 2806 Background
The bill was introduced by the House Committee on
Federal and State Affairs at the request of a representative of
IdeaTek.
House Committee on Energy, Utilities and
Telecommunications
In the House Committee hearing on February 29, 2024,
representatives of Cox Communications and IdeaTek
provided proponent testimony, stating the bill would ensure
counties’ fees are non-discriminatory and competitively
neutral, similar to the requirements for cities in KSA 17-1902.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by a
representative of AT&T Kansas.
Written-only neutral testimony was provided by a
representative of the Kansas Association of Counties.
No other testimony was provided.
The House Committee amended the bill to:
●Clarify that the provider rights expressed in the bill
do not abrogate their rights pursuant to a State-
issued video service authorization;
●Clarify the bill applies to permit fees charged by the
county;
●Clarify the construction and repair costs used to
determine the fee for recovery are “direct and
reasonable” and that the fee be limited to the
proportion of the cost attributable to the activity of
the provider; and
●Make technical edits.
4- 2806 Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, as introduced, the Department of
Transportation indicates enactment of the bill would not have
a fiscal effect. The Department notes the bill states that
“public right-of-way” would not include any real property,
structures, or facilities under the ownership, control, or
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation.
The Kansas Association of Counties indicates
enactment of the bill could have a fiscal effect on counties
depending on whether there are other costs associated with
the public right-of-way that are not listed in the bill; however, a
fiscal effect cannot be estimated.
Telecommunications; county; public right-of-way; video service providers; permits
5- 2806