Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/11/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB371 | |
| HB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 371 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 371-STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
1:06:11 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 371, "An Act providing for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to hold the surface estate
of certain state land; relating to the transfer of certain state
land and materials from the Department of Natural Resources to
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the
construction or maintenance of the state highway system, state
airports, and state public buildings and facilities; relating to
the lease or sale of certain marine or harbor facilities;
relating to the lease or disposal by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities of rights-of-way, property
interests, or improvements that are no longer required; relating
to the grant of certain easements over submerged state land to
the federal government; relating to the transfer of certain
maintenance stations on the James Dalton Highway to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; relating to
the conveyance of land for right-of-way purposes from the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
1:06:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON moved to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, labeled 28-LS1545\N, Bullock,
3/10/14 as the working document. There being no objection,
Version N was before the committee.
1:07:21 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the House Transportation Committee,
Representative P. Wilson, Chair, explained the changes in the
proposed CS, Version N. She reported that a companion bill is
in the other body and the changes in Version N were made to
conform to the other bill. She related that the title was
shortened and she characterized the changes as being technical
or cosmetic changes.
MS. ROONEY described HB 371 as a collaborative effort between
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The purpose was
to reduce ambiguity and streamline the rights-of-way processes
between the two departments. This bill represents a "no cost
solution" that will save time and resources for transportation
projects. Additionally, it will reduce contracting requirements
between DOT&PF and DNR when accessing road materials for
transportation projects. She noted a reciprocal removal of the
55-year limit on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) transportation
easements and DNR's log transfer priority easements. Finally,
under the bill, DNR would transfer two DNR sites to DOT&PF for
use as maintenance stations and airstrips to accommodate recent
resource development. She identified the sites as Franklin
Bluffs and Happy Valley on the Dalton Highway.
CHAIR P. WILSON reiterated that this bill is an agreement
between the two aforementioned departments to streamline the
process when a right-of-way exchange is necessary.
1:10:18 PM
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-Way Chief, Northern Region, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that HB 371
will change the relationship between the DOT&PF & the DNR with
respect to the acquisition, management, and disposal of lands
necessary for airports, highways, and public facilities. He
pointed out that 30 percent of the land in Alaska is owned by
the state and managed by DNR. Thus, the DOT&PF's interaction
with DNR for lands and materials is extensive. The bill
sections repeat language for each of the DOT&PF's three areas of
authority.
1:11:21 PM
MR. BENNETT said the bill clarifies that DOT&PF has the primary
authority to manage the surface estates for the highway rights-
of-way, airport properties and public facilities. That primary
authority relates to existing rights-of-way and existing lands.
First, this bill would help clarify the management authorities
and roles of each department. Second, the bill would provide
uniform language across all of the authorities for the disposal
of land interests that the DOT&PF has deemed excess to its
needs. This combination would work to solve some issues that
adjoining landowners have when encroaching into the rights-of-
way. Under the bill, the DOT&PF would have the unilateral
authority to dispose of lands, which can help solve these
landowner issues. Third, this bill would set up a new process
for transferring land and land interests from the DNR managed
public domain into the DOT&PF. Essentially, this bill was
modeled after a federal process the department uses with the
Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) to assist the DOT&PF in
appropriating land from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the U.S. Forest Service. For example, when the department
determines it needs right-of-way properties, the affected
parties can go to the agency and tell them they have four months
to comment or the FHWA will appropriate it directly. He pointed
out the FHWA will actually issue the deed to the state. This
bill would set up a similar process that will streamline the
process of acquiring DNR managed lands. Furthermore, the DOT&PF
would like to streamline and create a new process for acquiring
sand and gravel materials for its projects. Under the current
process one state [department] contracts with [another] state
[department]. The DOT&PF enters into a material sales contract
with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that includes payment
for materials. Typically these contracts have a limited term
and a limited quantity of material. However, the authorizations
often lapse and the department must request additional
authorization to expand the quantity or the term. This process
has created an administrative burden for both agencies
especially since the state is requesting state-owned materials
to construct state-owned infrastructure. The process under the
bill would result in a more efficient process.
1:14:24 PM
MR. BENNETT identified additional provisions that relieve the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) from the necessity to obtain
legislative approval when the DOT&PF requires fee title from the
ARRC. Currently, the DOT&PF can negotiate and appraise property
just as it would with any private owner, but the ARRC must
subsequently seek legislative approval. This requirement for
additional legislative approval can add one to two years to the
project delivery process, which the department believes results
in unintended consequences. Additionally, one provision of HB
371 would transfer the Happy Valley and Franklin Bluffs Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) campsites from the DNR to DOT&PF.
Mr. Bennett pointed out that the DOT&PF applied for these
properties twenty years ago. Although these camps provide an
efficient delivery of maintenance services, additional resource
development along the corridor and the potential for a natural
gas line makes it important for DOT&PF to acquire these sites
now. However, these camp transfers have been hampered by
competing municipal entitlement selections by the North Slope
Borough (NSB). He deferred to the Department of Law (DOL) to
discuss the issues related to these reciprocal easements.
1:15:58 PM
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section,
Department of Law (DOL), stated that the Congress granted
easements across the Tongass National Forest connecting towns in
Southeast Alaska in exchange for the state granting the U.S.
Forest Service easements across the state's submerged lands for
log transfer facilities, access to USFS cabins, and recreational
facilities. The easements were prepared and exchanged between
the state and the federal government but because of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)'s regulations the state
easements to the federal government are limited to 55 years. In
the reciprocal exchange, the USFS has limited the states' road
and utility easements to the same 55 years. Section 16 [of HB
371] would allow the DNR's commissioner in a best interest
finding to remove the 55-year limitation. Further, the USFS has
assured the state that it will give an equal term of years,
which would allow the extension of the state's easements across
USFS lands.
1:17:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON recalled that Section 16 was disputed by
municipal governments. He asked whether the department has
resolved the municipal disputes.
MR. BENNETT answered yes; he is correct that competing interests
exist. The department applied for this authority 20 years ago,
based on the assertion that the existing state land was more
appropriately used for public purposes rather than to be
allocated under the municipal entitlement program. He estimated
between one-third and one-half of the land selected will still
be available after the department has "carved out" lands needed
to enclose airstrips, material sites, and the existing building
plants. He related this is based on a review of a graphic
representation of the lands previously selected by the North
Slope Borough (NSB). One reason this matter has not progressed
is due to the competing interests. He maintained the DOT&PF
believes the public's interest and use of this property is
greater and more significant than municipal interests.
1:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he understood that this could be
construed as another method of obtaining municipal revenue
sharing since the Dalton Highway serves a statewide interest,
although one municipality obtains an extra advantage. For
example, it would be similar to the City of North Pole claiming
some facilities along the Richardson Highway to tax or gain
revenue from the activities. He asked whether this is part of
the consideration and to identify any disadvantages.
1:20:33 PM
MR. BENNETT agreed the North Slope Borough's intent is revenue
generation. These sites would be very sought after since they
were selected as TAPS sites for a good reason. He suggested the
NSB would seek to select and receive title to these sites and
lease them back to the state on an as-needed basis. However,
the DOT&PF seeks to avoid these situations since it maintains
that retaining the properties is in the public's best interest.
1:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the provisions in Section
16 will resolve the issue.
MR. BENNETT answered this language will declare that this
property has been transferred to DOT&PF and is not immediately
available for municipal entitlements. However, he envisioned
that over time the use of the sites will no longer be necessary
and the sites might be available for NSB selection or conveyance
at a later date.
1:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that this bill was read
across the floor yesterday so he has not yet had an opportunity
to review this somewhat complex bill. He hoped the committee
will have more opportunity to ask questions beyond today.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that HB 371 is a simple yet
complicated bill that will allow land transfers between the two
departments. In further response to a question, she
acknowledged the committee member's request for additional time.
1:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled some railroad acts allow the
ability to transfer rights-of-way lands back to the adjacent
landowners. He remarked he is never opposed to transferring
lands to private landowners. He asked whether the land should
be transferred to private landowners instead of to the state.
MR. BENNETT answered that [Section 16] is narrowly tailored to
only relate to the relationship between the ARRC and the DOT&PF
to allow the department to obtain fee title on certain railroad
lands. He understood the rights-of-way being re-conveyed to
adjoining landowners. However, he did not believe this is the
situation being addressed today. This provision relates solely
to properties the railroad owns or intends to own.
1:24:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that at some point the railroad
must not want the land or they wouldn't be interested in
transferring it.
MR. BENNETT answered that it is not a question with respect to
the railroad wanting to dispose of land but rather that the
DOT&PF requires the ARRC's land for an airport or highway
project. He clarified that the department identifies the need,
appraises, and negotiates the land transfer, but the ARRC does
not volunteer to sell it to the DOT&PF until that point.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the ARRC is not in great
financial shape right now so it may be in the ARRC's interest to
lease the land instead of transferring it by a fee simple
process.
MR. BENNETT acknowledged the point, but the DOT&PF tends to
avoid leases since the term of the lease will end, yet the
public funds for a new project may not be in place yet. This is
the reason the DOT&PF seeks to purchase permanent right-of-way
or land interests, whether it is through easements or fees.
This provides the basis for future knowledge of when funds are
needed.
1:26:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that either the ARRC will seek
funds or else the DOT&PF will seek more funds to lease lands
from the ARRC. He was unsure whether it would be best for the
legislature to [appropriate funds to] the ARRC or the DOT&PF.
He questioned whether the DOT&PF has more opportunities to
obtain federal funds. He said he has questions on the best way
to ensure the future of the ARRC and the DOT&PF.
1:27:09 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for further clarification that this isn't
a special case since this is the process DOT&PF uses with
respect to right-of-way acquisitions.
MR. BENNETT answered that the best public policy for
acquisition, maintenance, and operations of public projects is
to avoid recurring costs, which having a permanent interest in
the rights-of-way accomplishes. He related his understanding
that the ARRC supports this language.
1:28:13 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that under the bill
the DOT&PF would purchase land from the ARRC.
MR. BENNETT agreed. He summarized that this provision would
advance project delivery by not requiring legislative approval
of the land transfer [between the ARRC and the DOT&PF].
1:28:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood this would expedite projects
in order to develop the state, but the bill does not extend rail
lines or reconvey properties. For example, under the bill, if
the state decided to build the railroad to Delta Junction or
some other location the legislature would authorize the DOT&PF
to negotiate the land needed for right-of-way acquisition. This
could help speed up projects if the legislature has approved the
right-of-way acquisition in advance.
MR. BENNETT related an example in which the DOT&PF need to
acquire substantial property on the Illinois Street project in
Fairbanks. Since the rights-of-way acquisition required
legislative approval it took one or two additional years to
secure legislative permission. Although the DOT&PF can appraise
property, and negotiate prices, the railroad cannot execute
deeds for fee simple title without legislative approval.
1:30:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood that the bill would help
contain development costs and this bill also represents one of
the best ways to save the railroad money.
MR. BENNETT acknowledged that one of the benefits would be to
advance projects.
1:30:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the bill might create
unintended consequences and for any downsides.
MR. BENNETT answered that he considered this provision of the
bill to be the most benign. He offered his belief that this is
essentially an unintended consequence of the enabling statutes
for the railroad. He felt certain the legislature couldn't have
intended to delay projects between one state-owned entity and
the DOT&PF.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the projects in question have
already received legislative approval, but the way the ARRC's
statutes were written requires the railroad [or DOT&PF] must
seek additional legislative approval.
MR. BENNETT agreed, noting typically these projects are major
capital improvement projects.
1:32:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS remarked that this bill affects state
property and does not relate to the state acquiring private
property.
MR. BENNETT agreed. He said the portions that relate to the
transfer of properties from DNR's public domain to the DOT&PF
would be considered transfer of "state property" to "state
property." The railroad was established as a state-owned
corporation so it is treated a little differently.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked for further clarification that this
is not affecting individual property rights.
MR. BENNETT agreed it does not affect individual property
rights.
1:33:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that at the time the railroad
was transferred, the legislature wanted control over the
transfer of any railroad land. He surmised this body still has
an unwillingness to give up control. He remarked that "nothing
is simple" with respect to the railroad.
CHAIR P. WILSON reminded members that this bill relates
specifically to the DOT&PF and not with any private entity.
MR. BENNETT agreed.
1:35:00 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), stated that DNR has worked with DOT&PF for many months on
the bill and DNR does not have any issues with the bill. The
fundamental concept embodied in HB 371 is similar to the DNR's
efforts to improve its permitting processes and to eliminate
duplicative bureaucracy and unnecessary processes. He asked why
the state should have to contract with itself for materials if
the DOT&PF needs to use materials within the right-of-way for
its road projects. Under the bill, the DNR would still manage
the subsurface rights and lands within the right-of-way for
other uses while prioritizing by keeping DOT&PF's needs at the
top. He suggested that HB 371 is one mechanism to eliminate
repetitive work for both agencies.
1:36:11 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether HB 371 will save the state money.
MR. FOGELS answered yes.
1:36:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS remarked that time is money and she
understood this bill will save time.
MR. FOGELS answered yes; that HB 371 will save staff time.
1:36:45 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for an estimate of the average staff time
that will be saved.
MR. FOGELS answered that the time savings is difficult to
quantify. However, the DNR spends significant energy and time
within the department to adjudicate material sales relating to
roads or highway projects. He estimated that several staff
spends most of their time on these issues which could be used to
reduce the DNR's backlog somewhere else.
1:37:53 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether this staff could work on
permitting in some other area.
MR. FOGELS agreed.
1:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the materials would
primarily be gravel.
MR. FOGELS answered that the materials would be gravel, rock,
and sand.
1:38:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether private companies primarily
hold these leases.
MR. FOGELS answered that DNR has material sales contracts for
materials sites with multiple contracts between the private
sector and DOT&PF on some sites. He agreed the department would
need to sort this out but new sites would be under the DOT&PF
and the DNR would work with the DOT&PF on any preexisting
contracts.
1:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON emphasized that he'd like to avoid the
situation with a private company bidding on a state job but the
state has a "sweetheart deal" for the materials. He suggested
it has been proven that the private sector projects cost less
than the state to accomplish. He summarized that he would like
to avoid the state taking away private jobs due to a "sweetheart
deal" on material costs.
MR. FOGELS said DNR views it that third party contractors will
work on the projects regardless. This bill would only eliminate
the DNR component from the chain. The DOT&PF would administer
third-party contracts to perform road construction and use
materials.
1:40:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his goal to ensure that this
bill doesn't establish a DOT&PF bureaucracy that can overcharge
a private contractor for materials so the contractor doesn't
have any chance to win the bid. He would further like to ensure
that everyone is on equal footing. Currently, the private
sector performs quite adequately so he doesn't want to sacrifice
private industry jobs, he said.
MR. FOGELS offered to review the materials process with DOT&PF
and report back to the committee.
1:42:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Sections 2, 4, and 10,
specifically in Section 4, lines 15-17 of the bill, which allows
the department the ability to dispose of land. He asked whether
that means the DOT&PF will receive revenue for the land sale.
MR. FOGELS answered that Section 4 refers to DOT&PF's statutes.
He related that DNR has mechanisms for land sales, including a
land disposal income fund. He was unsure of the DOT&PF's
mechanisms, but speculated that the funds may go to back to the
general fund.
1:43:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he is interested in an
established protocol to ensure that DOT&PF will not need to set
up a process that DNR already does well.
MR. FOGELS answered that DNR's authority is for land sales to
the public. This provision relates to little remnants of land
leftover from projects such as highway realignment, such as a
sliver of right-of-way land is not used. Currently, DOT&PF
can't dispose of the aforementioned sliver of land so the land
reverts back to DNR who must then dispose of it. The current
process adds unnecessary time and bureaucracy. It's clear that
this bill would eliminate the bureaucracy and allow the DOT&PF
to directly handle the remnants, he said.
1:45:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 4 of HB 371 and asked
whether any implied priority exists. He read paragraph (1),
which read, in part, "transfer the land, property interests, or
improvements to the Department of Natural Resources, if
requested by the commissioner of natural resources; or ...." He
asked whether this language implies that DNR would have the
first right of refusal or if DOT&PF can dispose of the land as
it sees fit without any priority.
MR. FOGELS answered that the intent is for the DNR's
commissioner to agree to take the land back before the land is
transferred. The DNR wants to be part of the decision to ensure
the department agrees to the land transfer.
1:46:14 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out this language is also in Section 2,
4, and 10.
MR. FOGELS agreed.
1:46:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested that an instance may arise in
which the DNR might want the land, but the DOT&PF may decide to
sell it to someone else. He asked whether this section should
be structured with a clear priority to allow DNR the first right
of refusal on land transfers.
1:46:52 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON read subsection (b) [, which read, in part, "...
shall notify the commissioner of natural resources" on any
transfer of land or disposal of land so she envisioned the
commissioner would know in advance.
MR. FOGELS agreed, but the provision also requires the DNR to
"request" the land.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE questioned whether the DNR automatically
would receive any requested land or if it is still up to DOT&PF.
He asked whether the first right of refusal language should be
stronger.
MR. FOGELS deferred to the bill drafter or the Department of Law
to respond.
1:47:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the DNR would want the first
right of refusal.
MR. FOGELS answered that he did not think it would be an issue.
Again, the lands in question are lands used for transportation
purposes and typically the remaining land would entail small
remnants. He envisioned that the department would offer to sell
the land to an adjacent landowner.
1:48:39 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related an instance in which the DOT&PF
straightened a road and removed a curve, which left a sliver of
land it didn't need for the road project. She didn't imagine
anyone would want the piece, but she recalled the land was given
to the borough. She read subsection (b), in part, "If the
department determines that land, property interests, or
improvements are no longer necessary, the department shall
notify the commissioner of natural resources of the
determination and may ...." At that point the department may
transfer or dispose of the land yet the DOT&PF must still notify
the DNR, she said.
1:50:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged the bill's intention is to
give the DNR first right of refusal, but he pointed out some
instances in which condemnation has occurred. Under the bill,
land that had been condemned would revert to the DOT&PF instead
of to the original property owner.
MR. FOGELS thought that it would be best to have the Department
of Law present. Still, as he reads subsection (b), it requires
the DOT&PF to notify the commissioner of natural resources of
the determination and the department may transfer the land to
DNR or dispose of the land by sale, lease, vacation, or
exchange. Therefore, the DOT&PF has the choice, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that if the department
condemned the land, the DOT&PF should not have any choice if the
land is not used. Instead, he maintained that in those
instances the land should be offered to the private party.
1:51:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE interpreted Section 1 to give the
department the choice. The language requires the DNR to request
the land if the department wants it, but it is up to the DOT&PF.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON disagreed. Regardless of the
interpretation, if land is condemned and not used the
commissioner should not have a choice to decide. Instead, the
private owner should have the choice to buy the land back, he
said.
1:52:41 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested there are circumstances in which land
is condemned since the private party did not want to pay the
taxes. Thus, instances occur in which the party no longer
wishes to continue to make payments [and doesn't want the land.]
1:53:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed. However, an agreed buyout
represents different situation than a condemnation procedure.
He maintained that the private party should have the first right
of refusal and not a commissioner.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed. She offered her belief that the
department probably already has rules it follows but it's
important to find out.
1:54:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred again to [Section 4] paragraph (1)
[on page 3, lines 12-14], which indicates the DOT&PF may
transfer the land, but the department cannot arbitrarily do so
since the DNR must first request the land. Paragraph (2) would
allow for the disposal of the land. He maintained his question
on whether DNR should have an automatic preference and if the
language implies a preference. For example, if DNR requests the
land, should the land automatically be transferred or is it
still up to the DOT&PF commissioner to decide.
[HB 371 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0371A.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Sponsor Stmt .pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB371-DNR-MLW-3-10-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB371-DOT-SDES-3-11-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Elements of the Bill.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Glenn MP 118 N ROW Plans.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Old Glenn Hwy.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| SSHB 194 ver N.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB 194-Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB 194 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB194SS-DOT-NDAES-3-11-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB194SS-DNR-MLW-3-8-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB 194-Letters of Support.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB 194 Supporting Documents-Applicable Statutes.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB 194 Applicable Statutes.docx |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| HB 194 Ahnta Presentation 3-11-14.pptx |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 194 |
| CSHB 371 ver N draft.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |