Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/18/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB343 | |
| HB371 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 371 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 371-STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final 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."
2:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, labeled 28-LS1545\C, Bullock,
3/17/14 as the working document.
There being no objection, Version C was adopted as the working
document.
2:28:08 PM
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-way Chief, Northern Region, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), referred to a
letter of March 13, 2014 in response to questions posed by the
committee on March 11, 2014. He stated the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, Version C, will help clarify
language in Section 16 regarding reciprocal easements. He also
understood questions arose on whether this bill would eliminate
or reduce public involvement or public notice so the department
generated a chart to show all the points of involvement and
notice [entitled "Typical DOT&PF Project Development Process"].
MR. BENNETT also understood Representative Johnson has been
considering a proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked to discuss some questions
raised.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the aforementioned response letter
from the DOT&PF that answers a number of the questions raised at
the March 11, 2014 hearing.
2:31:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the private sector
would interface with the bill. The [March 18, 2014] letter from
DOT&PF poses questions on how SB 211 or HB 371 impact funding
for DNR and DOT&PF. He read [from a letter by a DNR person not
identified], as follows:
Would DOT lose funding from the lost material sale
revenue as a result of this bill? Would DOT gain a
new funding source from selling material from the
material sites? Section 13 of the bill states DNR
would no longer charge DOT for material. Does "DOT"
include DOT contractors? Would DOT start charging
their contractors or others for material from state
material sites? If so, where would those funds go?
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged the large number of
questions.
MR. BENNETT responded he is correct, with respect to the issues
of payment for materials, since DOT&PF would no longer be
charged so DNR would no longer have that revenue stream. He
related his understanding that the bulk of the revenue for the
sales of material goes into the state's general fund. To the
extent that some of it might be used in management or processing
of material sales contracts, he pointed out that the DNR would
not have the burden of applying for or processing material sales
contracts so the lost revenue wouldn't be quite as big of a
problem [since neither department would have to administratively
manage these contracts]. With respect to DOT&PF generating
revenue by sale of materials, he responded that this bill does
not provide authority nor has the department had authority to
sell materials to third parties. Thus, there wouldn't be any
revenue stream coming in to DOT&PF by virtue of this bill.
Further, the DOT&PF wouldn't charge contractors for materials
because the department is expecting the bidding process to
result in better prices since the department will use state-
owned materials and not need to procure them.
2:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged he has had a vague
impression that private businesses sell materials. For example,
in Sitka there are private quarries that sell gravel. He
expressed concern that the state would be competing with the
private sector if the state provides the material for free but a
private quarry in the same proximity sells the same materials.
MR. BENNETT acknowledged the concern. Even though the
department has hundreds of BLM and DNR sites available, the
department likes to consider its contracts as advertised ,au
contain contract-furnished materials. For example, the
department might make a material site available - a BLM or DNR
site - but the contractor is not obligated to use them. The
contractor may decide to purchase materials elsewhere or develop
a material site. It all depends on the market forces as to what
is best for the contractor to reduce his/her overall costs.
Clearly a lot of commercial material sites and competition exist
in the urban and suburban areas so the market forces will work
very well for the state. In rural areas it is more difficult
since not many property owners have materials to sell.
Additionally, the department must perform geotechnical
investigations to determine whether the material meets its
specifications and sufficient quantities exist. He acknowledged
there might be a private property owner who is aware of
available gravel, but that gravel may not be suitable for the
project. Further, there isn't any assurance that the private
property owner will offer the same conditions, terms, or prices
to all the contractors. It could skew the project significantly
in the instance that only one commercial provider exists. He
summarized that the department recognizes commercial providers
exist but the market will determine whether those will be used
by the contractor.
2:37:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario in which DOT&PF has a
material site for a project. Since the materials are free to
the department, the DOT&PF can underbid or complete the project
for less by hiring state employees. He would like to ensure
that the state does not perform projects that have previously
been done by the private sector under a competitive process for
the materials.
MR. BENNETT deferred to the deputy commissioner to answer;
however, he offered his belief that prior to taking on a project
that would have gone out to bid, the department would need to do
a best interests findings to determine it was in the state's
been interest that the maintenance forces did not pay for
materials or even larger maintenance work that could constitute
a project. In the same sense contractors aren't going to be
charged either since the materials are state-owned and are
designated for state projects. Thus, the department doesn't
envision any issue will arise.
2:38:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether it is constitutional to
give away the state's resources.
MR. BENNETT answered that the state would not be giving away its
resources since the materials would be used for public projects.
Further, DOT&PF represents the public in this instance.
2:39:03 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that everyone is on
the same "playing field" since the DOT&PF doesn't charge the
contractors either.
MR. BENNETT agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained the state would be giving away
resources to a private contractor even though it is for the
public good.
MS. RICE explained that the department does not intend to change
contracting procedures. Under the bill, the proposed change
would merely reduce paperwork between DNR and DOT&PF. First,
the DOT&PF physically manages most of these pits. Currently,
the DOT&PF contacts DNR, creates a materials sales contract at
$.50 per yard - the standard price - and makes the contract
available in specifications to contractors. All contractors can
use this source for materials; however, the contracting
specifications also allow the contractor to go to any supply.
In fact, contractors will sometimes make their own pits. Any
materials that come from the state's pit will end up being
embankment so essentially the DOT&PF is moving from one resource
to another. The public will always continue to use it. The
$.50 per yard not being paid is pretty inconsequential compared
to the $2-4 per yard that the department would pay. Further,
most of that money is haul and placement. The DOT&PF needs
certain quality materials, makes them available, but most of the
time the materials are not used.
2:41:05 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON surmised most of those are not in urban areas.
MS. RICE said that most of the material used by the Municipality
of Anchorage (MOA) is hauled from the Matanuska-Susitna valley
by train since did not believe DOT&PF has a pit in the area.
2:41:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained that the state would be giving
away state assets since they would not be charging the
contractor. He related his understanding the department would
waiver the $.50 per yard fee and asked whether this is
constitutional.
MR. BENNETT answered that the DOT&PF has purchased land for its
project. The state requests that the contractor use the state-
owned material on the state's project.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON envisioned a paving project in which
private contractor can bid on it $.50 per yard, but under the
new scenario the fees are waived.
2:43:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood that since DNR was involved
and the DOT&PF has paid DNR for materials, which he equated as
an administrative fee. He further understood that under the
bill, since DNR is no longer the owner, the DOT&PF is moving
material from one state site to a road bed. The state doesn't
provide a public benefit by paying DNR an administrative fee.
This bill attempts to consolidate the process by limiting the
management the project and materials for the project to one
department [the DOT&PF].
2:44:49 PM
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section,
Department of Law (DOL), responded that Representative
Isaacson's characterization is fully accurate. When the state
furnishes culverts, materials, or anything else for a project,
all bidders accommodate for this in their bid, which results in
reduced project costs and general fund savings. In instances in
which contractors have to purchase materials from the state, the
state would also pay additional administrative costs for the two
agencies [DNR & DOT&PF]. He clarified that the contractors are
not taking materials for their own personal use for third party
uses, but are moving state materials from one place to the
state's project site.
CHAIR P. WILSON characterized this as "getting rid of the middle
guy" since it will be cheaper.
MR. BENNETT agreed. He described the current process as moving
money from DOT&PF to DNR and the contractor does not benefit in
any way.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thought it might be circular logic.
2:47:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE acknowledged it was shifting money from one
pocket to the other. He asked how this is applied in federally-
funded projects.
MR. BENNETT answered that most of DOT&PF's projects are
federally-funded projects. In those instances, the department
uses federal dollars to pay the $.50 fee per cubic yard fee to
DNR. He suggested that for the most part the funds end up in
the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said the process would allow the DOT&PF to
obtain more from the federal funding for any given project.
MR. BENNETT answered that is correct.
2:47:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS related a scenario in a contractor invests
in a pit that provides the materials used on jobs; however, the
state is giving the contractor's competitors free gravel which
gives them an advantage.
CHAIR P. WILSON using that scenario, suggested that if the
contractor could get it for free that the competitors may also
wish to use the free material.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS agreed but pointed out that the contractor
would still be paying for the pit.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested the contractor could save his/her own
pit gravel for another purpose.
2:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said the competitiveness of the private
gravel pit owner is somewhat reduced by eliminating the cost of
the gravel. He suggested that the cost of the gravel is
primarily the transportation cost to deliver the material.
MR. BENNETT agreed that is a relevant point. One contractor may
bid and plan to use the state's existing material site. The
successful bidder may have purchased a site to develop since it
could result in a 20-mile less haul distance. He maintained the
developed site could be more competitive and it will still
"shake out" in the market.
2:51:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS understood the discussion.
However, he suggested that this bill changes the market to a
certain extent. While transportation and haul costs will still
determine whose gravel pit is most competitive in a project, the
current market forces are changed under the bill. He was
interested in hearing from the private sector in the rural and
non-rural areas with respect to the bill. He offered his belief
that it merits further investigation as to the specifics of how
this will affect contractors.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that contractors would be complaining
if the bill [created disadvantages for them].
2:52:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to the DOT&PF's response to the
committee [dated March 13, 2014]. He referred to page 2, which
read:
Could DOT&PF lease land from the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC), rather than the ARRC selling land
to DOT&PF?
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said the response was, in part, "The
short answer is that while leasing land from ARRC may benefit
the railroad's bottom line, it may not represent a good long
range policy for the management, operation and funding of DOT&PF
facilities."
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON offered that the letter gives two
examples, first, in which the ARRC was compensated in the
Illinois [Street project in Fairbanks]. In the second example,
the Healy River airport, the ARRC doesn't want to continue to
pay for a lease since it is a state benefit. He concluded that
the ARRC suffers negligible operational impacts when a portion
of ARRC's property is transferred as required for DOT&PF's
projects,. He understood the ARRC's land similar to the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Lands in that its purpose is to generate
revenue. Thus, the more land that is taken away from the
railroad the larger the impact it will have in terms of loss of
rent and profit. Currently, the ARRC has been suffering because
of fewer active leases and the ARRC has declining revenues due
to declining production at refineries and coal mines.
Therefore, any impact to the railroad can hurt, he said.
2:54:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON wondered if there might be a different
way to address this. He asked whether instead of taking land
the DOT&PF could exchange state land to compensate the railroad.
MR. BENNETT answered that DOT&PF doesn't have a land base that
it could trade since it is constrained by its obligations to the
federal funding agencies, such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Further, the DOT&PF pays fair market
value to the railroad for any land DOT&PF takes. The concept
behind this just compensation is that the ARRC can take the
proceeds and replace the right-of-way land taken from them.
Therefore, it doesn't necessarily reduce the land base unless
the railroad doesn't replace the lands acquired for the project.
Additionally, a railroad is considered a utility so in terms of
highway rights-of-way or airports, the ARRC can through a
limited fee of a utility permit can gain access to them. He
characterized this as being a very lopsided relationship. The
DOT&PF pays full fair market value for any lands it needs to
acquire from the ARRC, but the railroad can use DOT&PF's land
for a very limited fee.
MR. BENNETT, in terms of the Illinois Street project, explained
that the public used Illinois Street for 100 years and will
likely use it for another hundred years. He anticipated that
for a 50-year lease the DOT&PF would pay for the property "over
and over again." More importantly, when the term comes due it
will likely be out of synch with a DOT&PF project that would
generate revenue to renew the lease. For example, it would be
possible to pay for a lease from a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) funded project if one was available. Even
though the DOT&PF has been seeking one that without project
funding the DOT&PF doesn't have anything available to renew the
lease.
2:57:18 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that the ARRC reviewed this bill and
agreed with it.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON answered that this doesn't mean it will
necessarily be good for the railroad. He asked for further
clarification on the Healy project.
MR. BENNETT answered that it is not a good public policy for a
transportation department with long-term public needs to lease
land with a recurring renewal fee.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the ARRC's agreement should
relieve members of these specific concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON responded that it doesn't. He asked
whether the ARRC would receive any compensation for the
$320,000.
MR. BENNETT answered that this bill doesn't address leasing. It
would only eliminate the step necessary to receive legislative
approval for the ARRC to convey fee simple title. The
department believes this will advance projects by one to two
years. He maintained that this bill does not address leasing.
It will not eliminate any lease revenues due to the railroad for
the airport. The DOT&PF must secure these funds prior to the
end of the lease in 2017 if the public intends to use the land.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out a letter of support from the Alaska
General Contractors is in members' packets.
3:00:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, with respect to gravel, noted that DNR
will make available gravel sales to private companies for
private projects. He asked whether the ARRC will sell materials
to a private project. He interjected by related a scenario in
which the DOT&PF has materials and asked whether the department
will make gravel available to the public or if it is it just for
state use.
MR. BENNETT related his understanding the question is if DOT&PF
has acquired land from the ARRC or DNR, whether the DOT&PF would
sell gravel. To his knowledge, all the land acquired from the
ARRC has been dedicated to the actual operational need of the
highway or the airport. The DOT&PF doesn't have authority to
sell gravel, he said.
3:02:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed to non-railroad materials. He
understood a provision exists for DOT&PF to take a gravel pit
from DNR and use it for a state project. He asked whether
DOT&PF would sell non-railroad gravel to a private company,
which DNR can currently do.
MR. BENNETT answered yes.
3:02:47 PM
MR. LYNCH advised that the DOT&PF exemption in Section 13 of HB
371, relieves the DOT&PF from the material sales requirements.
He read, "Notwithstanding the provisions in AS 38.05.560 -
38.05.565 ...." This provision provides DNR authority to sell
materials from state-owned material sites. This bill relieves
the DOT&PF of the requirement from entering into a material
sales contract, but DNR retains its authority under AS 38.05.550
- 38.05.565 to sell material from these sites to third parties.
He reiterated that DOT&PF does not have any authority for third-
party sales and doesn't take the physical site itself.
3:04:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled testimony that if the state were
to provide a discount to a refiner on royalty oil, the state
would need to provide the same discount to everyone.
MR. LYNCH said he can't speak to the comparison since he doesn't
know the facts; however, this would allow for state-owned
resources to be removed from a state pit and put into a state
project. He concluded that the material is never disposed to a
third party. All bidders would have equal assess asset to
incorporate state owned material into the state project. It
would be the same way as if DOT&PF had an overstock of culverts
and lists it in the contract to be incorporated into the
project.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained that in terms of oil, whether
it was jet fuel for trains or something else that if the state
offered a discount it must give the same discount to all
parties.
3:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON recalled the commissioner said "may" but
not "must."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the state was subjected to
the same "may" for gravel as it is for oil so would the state be
putting itself in the position that it needed to give the
material away.
MR. LYNCH explained that the bids incorporate the same common
ground for "all bidders" so he did not envision this would set
up a disparity.
3:06:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE thought that the analogy would be to take
royalty oil and refine it into fuel used by state vehicles.
Further, the state could probably justify a lower cost of the
royalty oil if it resulted in a lower cost of fuel to the state
just as DOT&PF provides an equal opportunity for gravel to be
used on a state project. In the end, the result would be to
reduce the cost of materials. In the case of oil it could
reduce cost of fuel to the state and result in lower consumptive
costs to the state and hence the public.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained that a discount to one means
the state might need to give it to everyone.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE thought that rationale would only apply
since the state can only consume so much fuel.
3:07:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the language in Alaska's
Constitution that indicates the state's resources are for the
common good of all people.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON agreed that Article VIII, Alaska's
Constitution requires the maximum use and benefit to the people;
however, it also sets up a "similarly situated" aspect. Thus
the benefits would accrue to similarly situated circumstances
first and then to the rest. He suggested several other issues
could trigger a definitive answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked he still has questions.
3:10:02 PM
DICK MYLIUS said he is testifying as a private citizen although
he previously worked with DNR for 29 years and dealt with many
of these issues. He stated that his letter is in members'
packets [dated March 12, 2014]. He offered to summarize his
concerns that have not yet been addressed. His primary concern
stems from language in the bill that essentially says if the
DOT&PF asks DNR for a parcel of land, under proposed Sections 3,
5, 8, the state "shall" transfer these lands to airport,
highways, and facilities, respectively. Thus, DNR cannot
decline, condition the transfer, or protect existing or future
rights. His biggest concern relates to material sites or gravel
pits. Of his six general comments, the proposed CS, Version C
addresses his concern with Section 16. He explained that
proposed Section 13 would allow the DOT&PF to extract gravel
from any existing pit on state land. The DOT&PF would not be
allowed to establish any conditions on the gravel extraction.
He suggested that this provision needs to be distinguished from
the other provisions of the bill that allow DOT to receive title
to the surface estate.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for further clarification.
3:12:14 PM
MR. MYLIUS reiterated that Section 13 of HB 371 allows DOT&PF to
extract gravel from any existing gravel pit on state land,
including gravel pits may have been developed by another party
for a totally different purpose. For example, numerous gravel
pits exist on the North Slope. These pits have been developed
by the oil and gas industry or their contractors to specifically
support North Slope development. Of course, any development on
the North Slope would require gravel roads or pads although the
DNR has issued numerous gravel sales contracts to parties.
Under HB 371, DOT&PF could go take any amount of gravel from
those pits without any consideration or restrictions imposed by
DNR to protect those developing their own gravel pits. He
reiterated that DOT&PF could remove gravel from these pits that
essentially would make it impossible to fulfill contracts. The
provision in Section 13 doesn't say anything about protecting
valid existing rights although such protections are in other
provisions of the bill applying to the transfers. Section 13
would apply to any existing pits on state land. He strongly
recommended removing Section 13 from the bill.
3:13:48 PM
MR. MYLIUS said the bill still does not address the overriding
or competing land claims. He referred to an earlier example of
Happy Valley and Franklin Bluffs, in which the North Slope
Borough has municipal entitlement selections. The DOT&PF
responses indicate the state should keep those and the borough
essentially loses out. The bill doesn't address that there
still is a valid selection. If the intent of HB 371 is that
those parcels should be transferred to DOT&PF then the bill
should actually indicate that the NSB's selections should be
rejected. Otherwise the DNR will need to reject the selections
and likely need to litigate the matter. Additionally, if the
DOT&PF doesn't need all the land the bill leaves it totally up
to the DOT&PF to determine how much land and specifically which
land it gets to keep. This would essentially mean that the NSB
would be left with "the leftovers."
3:14:52 PM
MR. MYLIUS said the bill does not provide any method for public
concerns with access or conflicts with existing landowners. The
DOT&PF has indicated its existing process handles that process;
however, the DOT&PF's existing process pertains to highway
projects in terms of road location, but does not often get into
the specific location of gravel pits for state highway projects.
Those decisions are typically subsequent decisions and the
decisions about buffers and similar issues are made through DNR
at the time it executes a gravel sale to DOT&PF. Therefore,
there isn't any provision that allows for those types of issues
to be dealt with, he said.
3:15:31 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, asked him to put his concerns in writing.
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 371.
[HB 371 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB371 AGC Support Letter.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Testimony of Dick Mylius .pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 comments Smith.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB0343A.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343-Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343-Sectional Anaylsis.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343 DOTPF Presentation 3-13.msg |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343-DOA-FAC-03-07-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343-DOR-AHFC-03-07-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343-DOT-SPF-3-13-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| Sustainable Energy Act Annual Report to Legislature 2013 (2013 12 26).pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 ASHRAE 90_1 Article.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 Standardized Designs DOTPF 3-13-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB-343 AHFC 3 13 14 FINAL.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 CCHRC Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| 4407 MOU (wo exhibits).pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| Egan SB211 Response.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| Happy Valley Docs.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| HB 371 - letter Milles 3-12-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| Project Flow Chart.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| HB 371 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| Wilson HB371 Response.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| CSHB 371 Ver C Work Draft.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |