No. 13 might not be so lucky for Kolkhorst, moratorium

May 23, 2007

Ben Wear

Amendment 13 may not make it.

Gov. Rick Perry, and the math of the conference committee, are working against the amendment to SB 792 added last week by state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham. Her amendment to the toll road policy overhaul was meant to preemptively staunch any move by the Texas Department of Transportation to sign private toll road contracts for the Trans-Texas Corridor over the next two years. At the time, it seemed like maybe Kolkhorst was being paranoid, that surely the agency wouldn’t ignore the Legislature’s clear intent on that issue.

Not any more.

Perry, who already vetoed one toll road bill, is apparently willing to strike down SB 792 if Kolkhorst’s amendment stays in. Her amendment says that the moratorium on comprehensive development agreements would also apply to “facilities agreements” under those larger contracts. For the Trans-Texas Corridor twin to Interstate 35, a comprehensive development agreement has already been signed, and individual segments will be built under separate facilities agreements.

“So far, the communication is that he doesn’t want” the Kolkhorst amendment, said state Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, the House sponsor of SB 792. Smith stopped short of saying there has been a veto threat, but only a few inches short.

So why wouldn’t Smith and the other members of the conference committee, all of whom voted for Kolkhorst’s amendment and for a moratorium on private toll road contracts at multiple other points this session, stand up to Perry on the issue? The problem is that SB 792, with or without Amendment 13, addresses the concerns of Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth and even, to a degree, Austin.

“I guess Amendment 13 might be the cherry on the sundae, but we’ll have the sundae either way,” Smith said today.

Kolkhorst and state Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, who is on the Senate side of the SB 792 conference committee, are simply outnumbered by people who want the sundae more than the cherry. This is working to Perry’s advantage.

All Kolkhorst and Nichols may get, in the end, is a statement on the House floor (and maybe the Senate floor as well) of what the Legislature’s intent was with SB 792, minus Kolkhorst’s amendment. That statement would say lawmakers don’t want private toll road contracts (other than the numerous exceptions in SB 792).

That would be very nice. But it wouldn’t be binding if the Transportation Department decides it wants to build another segment of TTC-35.