Suspending limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction, H.B. No. 2702 (Krusee/Staples)
By: Krusee H.R. No. 2270
R E S O L U T I O N
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the State of
Texas, 79th Legislature, Regular Session, 2005, That House Rule 13,
Section 9(a), be suspended in part as provided by House Rule 13,
Section 9(f), to enable the conference committee appointed to
resolve the differences on House Bill 2702 (construction,
acquisition, financing, maintenance, management, operation,
ownership, and control of transportation facilities and the
progress, improvement, and safety of transportation in this state)
to consider and take action on the following matters:
(1) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to Section 91.054,
Transportation Code:
(c) The department may not enter into a comprehensive
development agreement with a private entity under this chapter that
provides for the lease or use of rights-of-way or related property
by the private entity to construct, operate, or maintain a facility
that is unrelated to the operation of the rail facility or system.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to address the
differences between the conferees on the issue of comprehensive
development agreements for facilities that are unrelated to the
operation of a rail facility or system by the Texas Department of
Transportation.
(2) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to Section 203.092,
Transportation Code:
(a-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the department and
the utility shall share equally the cost of the relocation of a
utility facility that is made before September 1, 2007, and
required by the improvement of a nontolled highway to add one or
more tolled lanes. This subsection expires September 1, 2007.
(a-2) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the department and
the utility shall share equally the cost of the relocation of a
utility facility that is made before September 1, 2007, and
required for the improvement of a nontolled highway that has been
converted to a turnpike project or toll project. This subsection
expires September 1, 2007.
(a-3) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the department and
the utility shall share equally the cost of the relocation of a
utility facility that is made before September 1, 2007, and
required for the construction of a new location of a turnpike
project or toll project or the expansion of a new location of a
turnpike project or toll project. This subsection expires
September 1, 2007.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to address the
differences between the conferees on the issue of the payment of
utility relocation costs when the relocation is required because of
construction related to toll lanes, turnpike projects, or toll
projects.
(3) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to Section 223.201(a),
Transportation Code:
(5) state highway improvement project financed wholly
or partly with the proceeds of private activity bonds, as defined by
Section 141(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to allow the Texas
Department of Transportation to enter into a comprehensive
development agreement to design, develop, finance, construct,
maintain, repair, operate, extend, or expand a state highway
improvement project financed wholly or partly with the proceeds of
private activity bonds, as defined by Section 141(a), Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to Section 223.201,
Transportation Code:
(g) The department may combine in a comprehensive
development agreement under this subchapter a toll project and a
rail facility as defined by Section 91.001.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to allow the Texas
Department of Transportation to combine in a comprehensive
development agreement a toll project and a rail facility.
(5) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to Section 223.203,
Transportation Code:
(e-1) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, the
department may prequalify a private entity to submit a detailed
proposal to provide services under a design-build contract. The
department is not required to publish a request under Subsection
(c) for a design-build contract, and may enter into a design-build
contract based solely on an evaluation of detailed proposals
submitted in response to a request under Subsection (f) by
prequalified private entities. The commission shall adopt rules
establishing criteria for the prequalification of a private entity
that include the precertification requirements applicable to
providers of engineering services and the qualification
requirements for bidders on highway construction contracts. Rules
for design-build projects adopted pursuant to this subsection shall
also provide for an expedited selection process that includes
design innovation as a selection criterion.
(e-2) In this section, "design-build contract" means a
comprehensive development agreement that includes the design and
construction of a turnpike project, does not include the financing
of a turnpike project, and may include the acquisition,
maintenance, or operation of a turnpike project.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to address the
differences between the conferees on the issue of the
prequalification of private entities for design-build contracts
for certain highway projects.
(6) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to Section 223.206,
Transportation Code:
(d) The department may not enter into a comprehensive
development agreement with a private entity under this subchapter
or Section 227.023 that provides for the lease, license, or other
use of rights-of-way or related property by the private entity for
the purpose of constructing, operating, or maintaining an ancillary
facility that is used for commercial purposes.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to address the
differences between the conferees on the issue of comprehensive
development agreements by the Texas Department of Transportation
relating to the use of rights-of-way for certain ancillary
facilities.
(7) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following SECTION to the bill:
SECTION 2.100. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary,
neither the Texas Department of Transportation nor a regional
mobility authority may acquire property, enter into a contract,
grant a franchise, or lease or license property for the purpose of
constructing or operating an ancillary facility to be used for a
commercial purpose under Chapter 228 or 370, Transportation Code.
This section does not apply to a segment of highway under the
jurisdiction of a regional mobility authority if the regional
mobility authority awarded a comprehensive development agreement
for the improvement of that segment before September 1, 2005. This
segment does not apply to a segment of the state highway system in
Travis or Williamson County if the Texas Department of
Transportation awarded an exclusive development agreement for the
improvement of that section before September 1, 2005. This section
expires September 1, 2007.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to address the
differences between the conferees on the issue of the acquisition
of property, granting a franchise, or leasing or licensing property
for the purpose of constructing or operating an ancillary facility
by certain entities.
(8) House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit
the committee to add the following to SECTION 8.02 of the bill:
(b) Before the executive director of the Texas Department of
Transportation or the director's designee may authorize a person to
use a state-operated aircraft, the person must sign an affidavit
stating that the person is traveling on official state business. On
filing of the affidavit, the person may be authorized to use
state-operated aircraft for official state business for a period of
one year. A member of the legislature is not required to receive
any other additional authorization to use a state-operated
aircraft.
Explanation: The addition is necessary to address the
differences between the conferees on issues relating to the State
Aircraft Pooling Board.