House Bill 1643 amends multiple existing statutes (RCW 47.44.020; 36.55.060; 35A.47.040; 35.23.251; 35.27.330; and 35.99.060) and creates a new section. The amendments clarify and expand the authority of the Washington State Department of Transportation, counties, cities, towns, and code cities to require removal or relocation of utility facilities at the franchise holder’s expense when a roadway or right-of-way project is carried out by a private entity as a condition of development and the governmental entity finds the project is in the public interest and has been included in a published local or state plan or program. The bill makes several specific legal changes: for state highways it specifies removal/relocation procedures, franchisee liability for damages and restoration costs, the state’s reimbursement share as set in RCW 47.44.030, and limits franchises to 50 years with no exclusive franchises; for county roads it adds similar removal/relocation authority and requires counties to consult water/sewer utilities in predesign for projects involving those facilities; for cities, code cities, and towns it adds procedural requirements for granting franchises (delayed adoption after introduction, attorney review, publication, vote thresholds, and possible bond requirements). The amendment to RCW 35.99.060 requires cities and towns to notify service providers of relocation needs, set a completion date after consulting providers, allows a court or city to set a later date upon showing, limits when cities must reimburse providers (three listed exceptions including a five‑year lookback, aerial‑to‑underground incremental cost, and agreed aesthetic relocations), provides cost‑allocation rules when a project primarily benefits private parties, and authorizes relocation at provider expense in emergencies. These are statutory and procedural changes and reallocations of financial liability rather than creation of new criminal penalties. The extract is incomplete in places: the new section’s text is not provided, language in RCW 35.27.330 was cut off, the full amended text of RCW 35.99.060 and certain definitions (for example, “service provider” or “authorized facilities”) are not included here.

If enacted, state and local transportation agencies (Washington State Department of Transportation, counties, cities and towns) will have clearer authority to require utility companies and other franchise or permit holders to remove or relocate their facilities at the utility’s expense when a roadway or right‑of‑way project is done as a condition of private development but is determined to be in the public interest and appears in a published plan. Utility operators will face more frequent and defined obligations to pay relocation and restoration costs, be liable for damages from installation and trenching (including loss of pavement life), and meet deadlines set by cities or towns; they generally cannot force cities to reimburse those costs except in limited situations (if the provider recently paid for the same relocation, if aerial-to-underground work adds incremental cost tied to ownership of supporting structures, or if the move is purely aesthetic and agreed). Counties must consult water and sewer utilities early on, franchises are limited to 50 years with no exclusives, and common trenching liability is shared equally among franchisees. The parties most affected are utility/franchise holders (higher costs, bigger legal and scheduling risks), local governments (more authority but added duties to notify, consult, set deadlines, publish ordinances and possibly require bonds), and private developers (who may have to reimburse relocation costs when a project primarily benefits them and statutory conditions aren’t met). The bill text provided leaves some details unclear—definitions of key terms, the full content of amended subsections, and the new section are not shown—so the precise triggers, exceptions, and procedural steps cannot be fully confirmed from these excerpts.