During the legislative session a large number of bills affecting the construction industry were filed and many became law. As in any session, some are good, some are bad, some are downright ugly, and some bills one is not so sure about. The good news is that many favorable bills passed while only a few of the bad and the downright ugly passed. Also, many bad bills or bad amendments failed adoption. While not totally successful at stopping everything bad, the Texas Construction Association got results on many issues for Texas' subcontractors and suppliers.

BILLS THAT PASSED

HB 329: This measure provides for the licensure of those who do mold assessment and remediation. An amendment was added to clarify the this did not involve the diagnosis, repair, cleaning, or replacement of plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical or air duct systems or appliances.

HB 730: This bill provides for a Homebuilder Registration bill. All persons who construct, supervise or manage the construction of a new home, a material improvement to an existing home (other that a roof) or an improvement to the interior of a home (for improvements of $20,000 or more) must register under the Act. If a person is already licensed by the state to practice their trade (such as plumbers and air conditioning contractors), they are not required to register. A dispute resolution process is established to resolve disputes between the homeowner and builder prior to any legal action. This is a very comprehensive bill. Subcontractors doing work on residential projects should closely examine it.

HB 1131: This measure prohibits insurance companies from owning an interest in auto repair facilities that includes auto glass shops. This measure was strongly supported by the Texas Glass Association. Existing ownership by insurance companies was exempted from the legislation. In the auto glass area, there was only one insurance carrier who has existing ownership interests (Allstate).

HB 1171: Bill provides that in circumstances where a statutory payment bond is not secured on a public project, the subcontractor must give the same notice (same time and manner of notice) to the governmental entity that it would have been required to have given in order to recover on a bond against a surety if a bond had been secured.

HB 1487: After many years of failing to pass, a statewide electrical licensure bill was enacted into law. This measure still allow municipalities to offer licenses and also to collect licensure fees, but the municipality cannot make the electrician with a statewide license take the city's examination. This is a very comprehensive bill. Anyone in or related to the electrical trade should closely examine it.

HB 3042: This measure was originally a three-page House bill that made minor changes to the Building and Procurement Commission. When the bill returned from the Senate, it had grown to a 35-page bill. The bill included a provision requiring consent from the Governor and the Legislative Budget Board before any more work could be done on a state building project when the project reached the amount authorized in the budget. Because of this provision, contractors should be aware of the amount authorized by the project. The bill also contained a provision that deleted the requirement for an agency to disclose the budget amount of a project.

SB 282: Sunset Legislation that reenacted the Board of Plumbing Examiners. Attempts were defeated which would have eliminated the Board and placed Plumbers under the Department of Licensing and Regulation.

BAD BILLS/AMENDMENTS FAILING PASSAGE

HB 688: Another lien bill, which would have allowed the owner to file an affidavit stating that the filed lien, was not valid. Unless the lien holder filed a counter-affidavit, the lien would be removed. After meeting with representatives of TCA, the sponsor pulled the bill down.

HB 1639: If passed this measure would have provided for licensure of fire sprinkler fitters. The measure was opposed by the Texas Fire Sprinkler Association. While the bill died in the Calendars Committee, there were three subsequent attempts to attach the proposal to other bills that did not succeed.

SB 551: This measure potentially would have given lenders an advantage over contractors and subcontractors on lien claims. The sponsor agreed not to pursue the legislation when he determined the possible detrimental effect on contractors and subs.

SB 1059: This was the Corporate Integrity bill that did pass, however, a provision was removed through the efforts of the construction industry that would have required those contracting with the State to provide an annual certified financial statement. Most subcontractors do not have these statements and the cost to obtain them would have been prohibitive to many.

SB 1952: This was the 400-page (growing to as large as 1,000-plus pages) "Government Reform" bill whose intent was to make the state government more efficient and save money. There were several provisions of concern to the construction industry. The major issue was the requirement that all state construction projects be covered under Owner Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIPS), i.e., the insurance coverage for workers compensation, liability, etc. be provided by the owner for all contractors and subcontractors. The thought was this would save the State millions of dollars (because the cost of insurance would not be figured into the bids of the contractors and subs). Because of past mixed experiences, the construction industry opposed this proposal. The proposal was in the bill, out of the bill, again in the bill and then out of the bill. The bill itself finally died under its own weight on the final day for consideration.

OTHER BILLS THAT FAILED PASSAGE