New Bill About Toll Roads Filed By Jon Lindsay

[pineda]

(This bill was filed on March 11th, which coincidentally is the last day to file bills. That right there caught my attention. I have asked for further clarification of the language and ramifications from this bill by Jon Lindsay, and when I get it, I will post it here also. See if you can figure out what he's trying to do here....)

79R9955 T

By: Jon Lindsay S.B. No. 1623

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the planning, construction, and operation of toll road projects by certain counties.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 284.001(3), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:

(3) "Project" means a causeway, bridge, tunnel, turnpike, highway, or any combination of those facilities, including:

(A) a necessary overpass, underpass, interchange, entrance plaza, toll house, service station, approach, fixture, and accessory and necessary equipment;

( necessary administration, storage, and other buildings; [and]

© all property rights, easements, and related interests acquired; and

(D) "Project" does not include an overpass, underpass, or interchange with a road on the state highway system unless that overpass, underpass, or interchange is designated by order of the County as part of the Project.

SECTION 2. Section 284.008, Transportation Code is amended by amending subsection © and adding subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:

© Except as provided in subsection (d), a project becomes a part of the state highway system and the commission shall maintain the project without tolls when:

(1) all of the bonds and interest on the bonds that are payable from or secured by revenues of the project have been paid; or

(2) a sufficient amount for the payment of all bonds and the interest on the bonds to maturity has been set aside in a trust fund held for the benefit of the bondholders.

(d) A county may request that the Commission designate a Project under this chapter excluded from the State Highway System. If the Commission concurs with the request, the Commission shall adopt a minute order that states that the Project is excluded from the State Highway System. Thereafter, the Project:

(1) is not subject to review or approval by the Department, except for that part of the Project within the State's right-of-way that connects to the State Highway System;

(2) must be maintained by the County; and

(3) does not become part of the State Highway System, except as provided in subsection (e).

(e) A county may transfer to the department a toll road project that has outstanding bonded indebtedness if the commission:

(1) agrees to the transfer; and

(2) agrees to assume the outstanding bonded indebtedness.

(f) The commission may assume the outstanding bonded indebtedness only if the assumption:

(1) is not prohibited under the terms of an existing trust agreement or indenture securing bonds or other obligations issued by the commission for another project;

(2) does not prevent the commission from complying with covenants of the commission under an existing trust agreement or indenture; and

(3) does not cause a rating agency maintaining a rating on outstanding obligations of the commission to lower the existing rating.

(g) If the commission agrees to the transfer under Subsection (e), the county shall convey the toll road project and any real property acquired to construct or operate the toll road project to the department.

(h) At the time of a conveyance under this section, the commission shall designate the toll road project as part of the state highway system. After the designation, the county has no liability, responsibility, or duty to maintain or operate the Project.

SECTION 3. Section 284.067(3), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:

© [Each] Any county into which the project extends, by condemnation or another method under general law, may acquire the property necessary for the project, provided that a county may not condemn property in another county until after the resolution required by subsection (a) is adopted. The county issuing the bonds may use the bond proceeds to acquire property necessary for the project in any county into which the project extends.

SECTION 4. Section 284.066, Transportation Code, is amended by adding subsection (e) to the following:

(e) If the operating board is a local government corporation, or if a local government corporation is acting pursuant this Chapter then:

(1) A director is entitled to receive fees of office of not more than $150 a day for each day the director actually spends performing the duties of a director. In this subsection, "performing the duties of a director" means substantive performance of the management or business of a project, including participation in board and committee meetings and other activities involving the substantive deliberation of business and in pertinent educational programs related to a Project. The phrase does not include routine or ministerial activities such as the execution of documents, self-preparation for meetings, or other activities requiring a minimal amount of time.

(2) An operating board or local government corporation, by resolution of the board, shall set a limit on the fees of office that a director may receive in a year, which amount may not exceed $7,200.

(3) Each director is also entitled to receive reimbursement of actual expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred while engaging in activities on behalf of the operating board or local government corporation.

(4) In order to receive fees of office and to receive reimbursement for expenses, each director shall file with the county or local government corporation a verified statement showing the number of days actually spent in the service of the district and a general description of the duties performed for each day of service.

SECTION 5. Section 395.001(a), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:

(a) This subchapter applies only to:

(1) the governing body of a toll road authority in which a county with a population of 2.4 million or more is located or the governing body of a toll road authority in a county adjacent thereto; and

(2) an outdoor sign.

SECTION 6. Section 395.051(a), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:

(a) This subchapter applies only to a county with a population of more than 3.3 million, or a county adjacent thereto.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

[jm1fd]

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Section 284.001(3), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like you need to merge the current version of Section 284.001 with the amendments he is proposing to make any sense of it....

[pineda]

(I was just looking that up and then, ran across another proposed change. )

By: Howard H.B. No. 3395

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the planning, construction, and operation of toll road

projects by certain counties.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 284.001, Texas Transportation Code, is

amended by amending subsection (3) to read as follows:

(3) "Project" means a causeway, bridge, tunnel,

turnpike, highway, or any combination of those facilities,

including:

(A) a necessary overpass, underpass,

interchange, entrance plaza, toll house, service station,

approach, fixture, and accessory and necessary equipment;

( necessary administration, storage, and other

buildings; [and]

© all property rights, easements, and related

interests acquired; and

(D) "Project" does not include an overpass,

underpass, or interchange with a road on the state highway system

unless that overpass, underpass, or interchange is designated by

order of the County as part of the Project.

SECTION 2. Section 284.008, Texas Transportation Code is

amended by amending subsection © and adding subsections (d), (e),

(f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:

© Except as provided in subsection (d), a project

becomes a part of the state highway system and the commission shall

maintain the project without tolls when:

(1) all of the bonds and interest on the bonds that are

payable from or secured by revenues of the project have been paid;

or

(2) a sufficient amount for the payment of all bonds and the

interest on the bonds to maturity has been set aside in a trust fund

held for the benefit of the bondholders.

(d) A county may request that the Commission designate

a Project under this chapter excluded from the State Highway

System. If the Commission concurs with the request, the Commission

shall adopt a minute order that states that the Project is excluded

from the State Highway System. Thereafter, the Project:

(1) is not subject to review or approval by the Department,

except for that part of the Project within the State's right-of-way

that connects to the State Highway System;

(2) must be maintained by the County; and

(3) does not become part of the State Highway System, except

as provided in subsection (e).

(e) A county may transfer to the department a toll road

project of that has outstanding bonded indebtedness if the

commission:

(1) agrees to the transfer; and

(2) agrees to assume the outstanding bonded indebtedness.

(f) The commission may assume the outstanding bonded

indebtedness only if the assumption:

(1) is not prohibited under the terms of an existing trust

agreement or indenture securing bonds or other obligations issued

by the commission for another project;

(2) does not prevent the commission from complying with

covenants of the commission under an existing trust agreement or

indenture; and

(3) does not cause a rating agency maintaining a rating on

outstanding obligations of the commission to lower the existing

rating.

(g) If the commission agrees to the transfer under

Subsection (e), the county shall convey the toll road project and

any real property acquired to construct or operate the toll road

project to the department.

(h) At the time of a conveyance under this section, the

commission shall designate the toll road project as part of the

state highway system. After the designation, the county has no

liability, responsibility, or duty to maintain or operate the

Project.

SECTION 3. Section 284.067, Transportation Code is amended

by amending subsection (3) to read as follows:

© [Each] Any county into which the project extends, by

condemnation or another method under general law, may acquire the

property necessary for the project, provided that a county may not

condemn property in another county until after the resolution

required by subsection (a) is adopted. The county issuing the bonds

may use the bond proceeds to acquire property necessary for the

project in any county into which the project extends.

SECTION 4: Section 284.066, Transportation Code is amended

by adding subsection (e) to the following:

(e) If the operating board is a local government

corporation, or if a local government corporation is acting

pursuant this Chapter then

(1) A director is entitled to receive fees of office of not

more than $150 a day for each day the director actually spends

performing the duties of a director. In this subsection,

"performing the duties of a director" means substantive performance

of the management or business of a project, including participation

in board and committee meetings and other activities involving the

substantive deliberation of business and in pertinent educational

programs related to a Project. The phrase does not include routine

or ministerial activities such as the execution of documents,

self-preparation for meetings, or other activities requiring a

minimal amount of time.

(2) An operating board or local government corporation, by

resolution of the board, shall set a limit on the fees of office

that a director may receive in a year, which amount may not exceed

$7,200.

(3) Each director is also entitled to receive reimbursement

of actual expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred while

engaging in activities on behalf of the operating board or local

government corporation.

(4) In order to receive fees of office and to receive

reimbursement for expenses, each director shall file with the

county or local government corporation a verified statement showing

the number of days actually spent in the service of the district and

a general description of the duties performed for each day of

service.

SECTION 5: Section 395.01, Transportation Code is amended

by amending subsection (a)(1) as follows:

Sec. 395.001. APPLICATION OF SUBCHAPTER. (a) This

subchapter applies only to:

(1) the governing body of a toll road authority in

which a county with a population of 2.4 million or more is located

or adjacent thereto; and

(2) an outdoor sign.

( Chapter 393 does not apply to the placement of a sign to

which this subchapter applies.

SECTION 6: Section 395.001, Transportation Code is amended

by amending subsection (a) as follows:

Sec. 395.051. APPLICATION OF SUBCHAPTER. (a) This

subchapter applies only to a county with a population of more than

3.3 million, or a county adjacent thereto.

( Chapter 393 does not apply to the placement of a panel or

sign to which this subchapter applies.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives

a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as

provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this

Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this

Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

[MaxConcrete]

A very large number of transportation-related bills have been filed. They run the range from stopping Governor Perry's toll juggernaut to speeding it up.

Understanding the Lindsay bill will take some time. Maybe I can do it this evening. (If you've figured out the bottom line, you should have paraphrased it for the rest of us.)

Another interesting bill would allow consolidation of toll road authorities (HCTRA) and transit authorities (Metro) into a single RMA.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo...ERSION=1&TYPE=B

I don't know where things will end up two months from now - I'm not seeing any momentum at this time, but I'm inclined to believe that Perry won't allow any damage to his toll-industrial-political complex. If there's one thing we learned from the last session, it's that somewhat obscure bills can contain provisions with far-reaching consequences, such as turning freeways into tollways or making the Trans-Texas Corridor possible.

[kjb434]

The merging of HCTRA and METRO type entities into and RMS would be a good concept. Then some of this money that HCTRA making can help finance rail projects.

[pineda]

Understanding the Lindsay bill will take some time. Maybe I can do it this evening. (If you've figured out the bottom line, you should have paraphrased it for the rest of us.)

I haven't figured out the "bottom line" yet, Max. I did print State Rep. Charlie Howard (from Sugarland)'s bill, and it is almost identical to Lindsay's bill. Not sure what date Charlie filed his, might just be a favor from Charlie to Lindsay to get it introduced into both branches. Doubt seriously that Charlie came up with this language on his own, he is just not that smart or devious, like Lindsay, IMO. Still waiting for clarification of language from Lindsay's office. C'mon, ZINA!

[GovernorAggie]

A very large number of transportation-related bills have been filed. They run the range from stopping Governor Perry's toll juggernaut to speeding it up.

Understanding the Lindsay bill will take some time. Maybe I can do it this evening. (If you've figured out the bottom line, you should have paraphrased it for the rest of us.)

Another interesting bill would allow consolidation of toll road authorities (HCTRA) and transit authorities (Metro) into a single RMA.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo...ERSION=1&TYPE=B

I don't know where things will end up two months from now - I'm not seeing any momentum at this time, but I'm inclined to believe that Perry won't allow any damage to his toll-industrial-political complex. If there's one thing we learned from the last session, it's that somewhat obscure bills can contain provisions with far-reaching consequences, such as turning freeways into tollways or making the Trans-Texas Corridor possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with making METRO and HCTRA one RMA. That way, they would have to work more together. However, I think that the makeup of the boards and staff would have to change. And I also think that if this happens, there may be more transit projects, since any board they have could possibly be weighed more heavily to Houston. I've always wondered why METRO wasn't responsible for the tollways, since they are for the HOV lanes.

As a side note, if the Supreme Court rules this summer in favor of Kelo in the Kelo v. New London case, it could basically aim a cruise missile at the TTC.

[MaxConcrete]

As a side note, if the Supreme Court rules this summer in favor of Kelo in the Kelo v. New London case, it could basically aim a cruise missile at the TTC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not familiar with this issue. What's is about?

[kjb434]

I think it was an eminent domain issue. If i remember right, and older neighborhood was condemned by the city using eminent domain to then turn the property over to a development company to develop an entertainment mixed-used area.

People living near the project claimed it was a mis-use of eminent domain. If the city of New London wins, it mean that any public entity just has to show some positive outcome of using eminent domain and then the public won't have a stand to object. The city of New London used the reason that the new development would bring in increased revenue than the existing property and will benefit the community.

Typically, I've only seen eminient domain used for transportation projects, this is the first time I've seen it for none transportation projects. And further to assist a private developer. I think this is another crucial point in the case. The presence of the private developer means that any private company can possibly convince a public entity to condemn land for their use.

I think the TTC being a transportion project to begin with, plus with the studies being performed to support it, it will not really be affected by this case. I think this case will affect more if developers try to build projects in midtown or downtown Houston and ask the city to condemn the land to force the tenants and owners out. I don't know if this has been done before here.

The TTC may have every right to use eminent domain whether we like it or not.

[Trophy Property]

The merging of HCTRA and METRO type entities into and RMS would be a good concept.  Then some of this money that HCTRA making can help finance rail projects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like this idea too. Maybe it would become too bearucratic, but there is so much money at stake, that a centralized governing body to spend it and manage it might be a good idea. As long public transportation continues to grow and Toll Ways continue to be built then I will happy either way.

[GovernorAggie]

I think it was an eminent domain issue.  If i remember right, and older neighborhood was condemned by the city using eminent domain to then turn the property over to a development company to develop an entertainment mixed-used area.

People living near the project claimed it was a mis-use of eminent domain.  If the city of New London wins, it mean that any public entity just has to show some positive outcome of using eminent domain and then the public won't have a stand to object.  The city of New London used the reason that the new development would bring in increased revenue than the existing property and will benefit the community.

Typically, I've only seen eminient domain used for transportation projects, this is the first time I've seen it for none transportation projects.  And further to assist a private developer.  I think this is another crucial point in the case.  The presence of the private developer means that any private company can possibly convince a public entity to condemn land for their use.

I think the TTC being a transportion project to begin with, plus with the studies being performed to support it, it will not really be affected by this case.  I think this case will affect more if developers try to build projects in midtown or downtown Houston and ask the city to condemn the land to force the tenants and owners out.  I don't know if this has been done before here.

The TTC may have every right to use eminent domain whether we like it or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct on the case, but the impact of the TTC comes from the notion of condemning land and then leasing it to a private company for the (sporadic) commercial development along the corridor. In my opinion, the potential "monopoly" of commercial development is a big attracter to the TTC. That's one reason, IMO, why they had such a large response to build TTC-35.

There will be benefits to the state with the TTC, but what kinds? On the other hand, have the TTCs been formed mainly to attract private investment (where the land for commercial purposes has also been offered)? If so, I think this is where the Kelo case comes in, because like in New London, the private company should have to go through a regular buy-sell process for landowners along the TTC if it will have development rights to the land. To condemn it in order to spare the private developers the agonizing process of land price negotiation and basically guarantee land access is very questionable to me. If the state wanted to just buy the developable land for Oases, then I think its not the same as the Kelo case--it's just when they invoke eminent domain.

[pineda]

Governor Aggie, I think you're on to something here. kjb34 was correct in saying that this is a transportation project, to begin with, but it changes a lot from that beginning, with the addition of private corporations and entities involved that may be getting assurances from Cintra or Perry that they will have first choice of prime real-estate along the corridor. This "transportation" project is a whole new animal that may morph into something completely unlike anything we've ever seen.

[pineda]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR COMMITTEE SELECTED

Today, March 31, 2005, the Texas Transportation Commission created a Trans-Texas Corridor Citizens Advisory Committee and appointed 21 members.

251 Texans applied for appointment to the committee that could have had as many as 24 members.

CorridorWatch.org co-founder Linda Stall is among those appointed today.

The Trans-Texas Corridor Advisory Committee also includes:

K. Stephen Bonnette, San Antonio;

Marc Maxwell, Sulphur Springs;

Louis Bronaugh, Lufkin;

Ann ORyan, Austin; Tim Brown, Belton;

Charles Perry, Odessa;

Sid Covington, Austin;

Jose R. Ramos, Buda;

Deborah Garcia, El Paso;

Wes Reeves, Amarillo;

Sandy Greyson, Dallas;

Grady W. Smithey, Jr., Duncanville;

Judy Hawley, Corpus Christi;

Linda Stall, Fayetteville;

Dr. Charles Henry, Lubbock;

John Thompson, Livingston;

Roger (W)HOR(E)D, Houston; (note; he is the President of the West Houston Association and a BIG booster of the Grand Parkway project. MaxConcrete - did you apply to be on this board?)

Martha Tyroch, Temple;

Alan Johnson, Harlingen;

Roy Walthall, Waco; and

William B. Madden, Dallas.

= = = = = = = = = = =

CorridorWatch.org

Background about Roger Hord, Tom Delay and a little project known as I-69

[MaxConcrete]

Roger (W)HOR(E)D, Houston; (note; he is the President of the West Houston Association and a BIG booster of the Grand Parkway project. MaxConcrete - did you apply to be on this board?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't apply. Given that I'm the operator of www.fireRicWilliamson.com, I think my chances of being selected were less than zero. Also, it looks like there were a lot of candidates.

As for Roger Hord, he spent most of his career at the Houston Chamber of Commerce/Greater Houston Partnership before moving to the West Houston Association to shepherd the Katy Freeway project to fruition. I interviewed him for the book. I don't know how much of a player he actually is, but he seems to know the local transportation scene as well as anyone else. In his role at the CofC, he was one of the key players in launching the 1980s freeway construction resurgence that continues to this day. (Lanier and Lindsay actually did the political heavy lifting.)

I don't think he did anything wrong in the I-69 lobbyist case. After all, his job is to get results for his organization's members. In terms of the Trans-Texas Corridor, I think he'll represent Houston's interests well. I'm not sure what that will really mean, since my analysis of traffic counts shows that there is absolutely no need for something like a Trans-Texas corridor along US 59. We really just need US59/US77 to be upgraded to interstate standards.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

I agree with making METRO and HCTRA one RMA.  That way, they would have to work more together. 

I've always thought this made a lot of sense, but I have a feeling that politics will get in the way of any sort of merger. METRO and HCTRA don't have a great working relationship as it is.