House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB68 - Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications
Short Title
Prohibiting cities from requiring a valid contract franchise ordinance for the provision of wireless telecommunications services.
Minutes Content for Thu, Mar 14, 2019
Chair Seiwert opened the hearing.
Matt Sterling, Revisor of Statutes presented a brief of the bill. (Attachment 1) He stood for questions.
Proponent testimony was presented by Mike Scott. (Attachment 2) He indicated the change is needed to resolve an issue that arose after the implementation of the Kansas Wireless Siting Act (WSA), wherein some cities began requiring a wireless franchise in addition to requiring companies to comply with the provisions of the WSA - before approving any wireless network construction in their community. The bill reflects an agreement reached between industry stakeholders and the League of Kansas Municipalities and its member cities. This is after extensive negotiations on how to best balance local interests with the need to help speed deployment of small cell technology to improve and expand wireless services to Kansans as in intended with the legislature's passage of the WSA in 2016. Mr. Scott stood for questions.
Michael Bagley testified in support of the bill. (Attachment 3) He indicated despite passage of the Kansas Wireless Siting Act, companies have essentially been held hostage for extra fees by cities requiring a franchise agreement - and additional fees - on top of a Master License Agreement (MLA) and the fees expressly authorized by the Act. This has left companies like Verizon with two untenable paths: they can either refuse to enter into franchise agreements, thus depriving their customers of service improvements and expansion; or they can enter into franchise agreements to address the urgent customer demand for date capacity and the ensure the access and viability of the 911 system, but be compelled to pay additional municipal fees on top of those authorized in the Act. He stood for questions.
Proponent testimony was given by Patrick Fucik. (Attachment 4) He stated cities in Kansas have interpreted the 2016 small cell law to allow them to charge franchise fees for the deployment of small cell facilities. Cities currently do, and are allowed under current law, to charge landline telephone companies a franchise fee (based on gross revenues) for deployment of landline facilities in their cities. However, the traditional franchise scheme does not make sense in the context of small cell deployment. The Legislature consciously recognized the value of bringing vital 5G technology to Kansans, and enacted the Wireless Siting Act to make small cell technology a priority by creating a uniform framework to streamline deployment. City-imposed franchise fees hinder the effectiveness of the 2016 law by allowing unnecessary impediments and burdensome processes to remain in place. Franchise fees can vary significantly from city to city, creating a cumbersome negotiation process that slows down the deployment of much-needed wireless technology. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the current Wireless Siting Act that explicitly prohibits or allows cities to charge wireless carriers a franchise fee for the deployment of small cell facilities. This bill addresses this loophole and prohibits cities from charging a franchise fee for the deployment of small cell facilities in Kansas. He stood for questions.
Written only proponent testimony was provided by Stacey B. Briggs, Sr., Manager, State Legislative Affairs, T-Mobile (Attachment 5), and Gerard Keegan, Vice President, State Legislative Affairs, Cellular Telephone Industry Association. (Attachment 6)
The Chair closed the proponent portion.
Neutral testimony was presented by Erik Sartorius. (Attachment 7) He indicated the League met and negotiated with industry representatives multiple times over the past three months. All parties gained insights regarding the others' perspectives and needs. The League reached a place where they believe the bill offers cities, their residents, and other right of way users some needed protections in the wireless siting process. They believe it is critical that cities have close, on-the-ground relationships with users of the right of way. Traditionally, the rights and responsibilities in those relationships have been spelled out in franchise agreements. He also stated he felt this bill should not be further amended at the eleventh hour. He stood for questions.
The Chair closed the neutral portion.
Opposition testimony was presented by John Federico. (Attachment 8) He indicated as it relates to the intentions and the efforts of the proponents of the bill, they are doing what they feel are in the best interests of their industry. They use as a justification for this bill, help in removing impediments to the speedy and streamlined deployment of new wireless technologies. On the basis of simple fairness, and in exactly the same manner, they ask for similar support in relief of burdensome delays and wasted resources in the hopes of faster deployment of their own small cell/wireless technology, in more areas of the state. He further stated that an amendment was in order, adding that similar clarifying statutory language has been adopted in numerous states around the country. He stood for questions.
Megan Bottenberg testified in opposition to the bill. (Attachment 9) She stated Cox works with wireless providers throughout the country to deploy small cells, because they already have the network infrastructure in place to provide the backhaul. Today Cox opposes the bill in its current form. Cox requests an amendment that would help them deploy small cells in a more streamlined fashion. The amendment would state that small cell facilities installed on cable strand located between utility poles shall not be subject to fees or rents charged by a municipality. This amendment simply codifies current practice - the right to offer non-cable services over their own cable system - and establishes a level playing field for all competitors in the marketplace. This has been confirmed in multiple provisions of the Cable Act, including Section 621(a), as well as by the FCC in the First, Second, and now Third (pending) 621 Report and Order, in legislative history, and case law. This amendment would allow their company the same ease of deployment as is the intent of the underlying legislation for other companies. This amendment would speed the deployment of next generation broadband. Ms. Bottenberg stood for questions.
Opponent testimony was given by Mike Taylor. (Attachment 10) He remarked passage of this bill could result in overbuilding of small cell nodes on utility poles as they could not be required to co-locate in existing conduit or on utility and traffic poles, so they could potentially be located on every utility pole. Local governments will no longer be able to require wireless providers to provide calculations to prove the spacing and height they need, so potentially each wireless company could locate on every pole. He stood for questions.
Written only opposition testimony was provided by Michael Koss, Assistant City Attorney, City of Overland Park. (Attachment 11)
The Chair closed the opposition portion and subsequently closed the hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:19 am.
