2009 House Bill 4961: Establish regulatory framework for private toll roads and bridges (including DRIC)

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Lee Gonzales (D) on May 19, 2009, to authorize the Department of Transportation to enter “public-private partnerships” to provide a “transportation facility,” which among other things means toll roads, and potentially the Detroit River International Crossing project (DRIC). The bill establishes a regulatory framework for such projects, including provisions allowing future toll revenue to be pledged against debt incurred for the project ("bond sales").
- Referred to the House Transportation Committee on May 19, 2009.
  - Reported in the House on April 29, 2010, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  - Substitute offered in the House on May 26, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details, but does not change its substance. This version was subsequently superseded by another substitute with more changes. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that establishes a more limited public-private partnership authority. See Opsommer amendments to this bill for more details. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Lee Gonzales (D) on May 26, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Lee Gonzales (D) on May 26, 2010, to require the Department of Transportation to craft agreements that minimize the state's potential liability for bridge toll revenue shortfalls. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. George Cushingberry (D) on May 26, 2010, to specify that the bill does not specifically authorize a Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) project. The amendment failed 48 to 54 in the House on May 26, 2010.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to require specific legislative approval for any new bridge, tunnel, lanes or road that charges tolls, user fees or imposes conditions on users. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to limit the term of any "public-private partnership" under the bill to 50 years. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on May 26, 2010, to prohibit any DRIC funding until all obstacles have been removed from the proposed second span of the privately-owned Ambassador Bridge. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom Pearce (R) on May 26, 2010, to require specific legisative authorization for any project that costs more than $100 million. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to tie-bar the bill to House Joint Resolution FFF, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HJR FFF would place language in the Constitution specifying that all toll revenue from a DRIC or other "public-private partnership" project be used for transportation purposes or for paying down the project debt. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to tie-bar the bill to House Joint Resolution Y, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HJR Y would place language in the Constitution earmarking certain transportation license fee revenue to the “Transportation Economic Development Fund,” or to road projects designed primarily for “rubber wheeled vehicles” (vs. trains, streetcars, etc.). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to establish that nothing in a public-private agreement would financially obligate or penalize any local government, or prohibit it from constructing any other transportation project or facility. Also, to require any public-private agreement to explicitly detail the full nature of noncompete clauses that exist within the agreement, and more. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Marty Knollenberg (R) on May 26, 2010, to prohibit the use of "availability payments" for funding a project under the bill. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Marty Knollenberg (R) on May 26, 2010, to specify that the bill applies to domestic authorities, not ones from another country (Canada) or state. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on May 26, 2010, to prohibit any employee of the Department of Transportation or its director from receiving anything of monetary value from a party or concessionaire in a project under the bill. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on May 26, 2010, to prohibit any upper level Department of Transportation employee from accepting a job with a partner or concessionaire in a project authorized under the bill for 10 years after leaving the state job. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom McMillin (R) on May 26, 2010, to establish that any "instrumentality of government" created under the bill would be subject to the state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Open Meetings Act (OMA). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
Passed 56 to 51 in the House on May 26, 2010, to authorize the Department of Transportation to enter “public-private partnerships” and borrow money ("sell bonds") to provide a “transportation facility,” which among other things means toll roads, and potentially the Detroit River International Crossing project. The bill establishes a regulatory framework for such projects, including provisions allowing future toll revenue to be pledged against debt incurred for the project.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 1, 2010.
- Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on June 1, 2010.
- Motion in the Senate on December 2, 2010, to discharge the Committee on Transportation from further consideration of the House-passed bill to authorize a Detroit River International Crossing bridge project. The defeat of the motion kills the project for now (although the campaign for it probably begins anew in the 2011 legislative session). The motion failed 11 to 23 in the Senate on December 2, 2010.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4961 (Establish regulatory framework for private toll roads ) by Judy on December 3, 2010

Senator Kahn’s statement is as follows:

I appreciate the good Senator from the 8th District’s passion for this subject. He and the chamber need to recognize that a last-minute substitute on the last day of session without a hearing and without members having an opportunity to examine it is bad precedent for legislation, particularly of this magnitude. That ignores all the inherent weaknesses of the entire concept. There is no way that something of this manner should be voted for. I urge that it be rejected.

Line

2) Re: 2009 House Bill 4961 (Establish regulatory framework for private toll roads ) by Judy on December 3, 2010

Senator Basham’s second statement is as follows:

I would like to speak to the comments made by my good colleague and friend across the aisle. On a previous legislative day, I made a comment about never wanting to rush an undertaker. I think today it is time to start the undertaker to do, in fact, what he is sent up here to do and support his colleague across the aisle. We have worked on this legislation bipartisanly, and we do have a substitute bill for the House bill that addresses all those concerns that he mentioned. If we have a chance to have up-or-down votes on this legislation and add the substitute language that he had done with members who had concern with this legislation; if we are allowed to add that to the House bill, this would complete a process that has been worked on for many years with his office.

I would ask him to think about working across the aisle just a little bit more and that we actually rush this job and put people back to work.

Line

3) Re: 2009 House Bill 4961 (Establish regulatory framework for private toll roads ) by Judy on December 3, 2010

Senator Basham’s first statement is as follows:

There are a number of reasons why we should discharge the DRIC legislation. The DRIC is a project about maintaining jobs and creating jobs in the heartland of the world’s most important trading relationship since 1988’s free trade deal was implemented. Two-way trade has tripled, the local border handles 30 percent of Canada-U.S. trade, and $130 billion moves through Windsor and Detroit. That is about as much as the next three busiest bridge crossings combined.

Bilateral trade supports more than 8 million U.S. jobs, including 220,000 Michigan jobs. Canada is Michigan’s largest trading partner. They purchase 28 percent of Michigan’s foreign-bound goods. In 2008, trade between Canada and Michigan reached $67.4 billion. Commercial truck traffic will increase by more than 100 percent by 2035.

The DRIC bridge is the only project that is literally ready to roll. Both the Obama and Harper governments have made it clear that they are committed to protecting and fostering what is the world’s closest and most expensive trading partner. Another reason to discharge this bill.

Unemployment benefits ran out yesterday. There are plenty of unemployed people who would love those good-paying, prevailing-wage jobs building a new bridge between Michigan and Canada. Another reason to discharge this bill.

There have been comments about not enough knowledge about the complexities of this DRIC project. This issue has been vetted for seven years. I know I can’t have a prop here at the podium, but if you look over to my desk, you will see books and books of briefs MDOT has submitted to this legislative body, including 2006, 2008, and May 1, 2010. Another reason to discharge this bill, Mr. President.

Also there were arguments made about Canada. First of all, that it wasn’t going to take taxpayer dollars. Canada said that it will pay up to $550 million for this project.

Another reason to discharge this bill is homeland security reasons. The idea of floating a bridge across the Detroit River has been vetted. Again, another reason to discharge this bill.

There are many court cases about this piece of legislation. One of the federal court judges said in his more than 33 years as a judicial officer, the DIBC may be entitled to its recognition as a party who has devised the most creative schemes to delay compliance with the court order. The DIBC schemes failed, as they lacked support in the law of U.S. Federal Circuit Court; therefore, DIBC is not entitled to receive the court’s jurisdiction. So it’s another reason to discharge this bill here today in this legislative body. Members should vote on this most important issue.

Line

View Full Conversation