HOUSE BILL NO. 23 "An Act relating to bonds of the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority; relating to reserve funds of the authority; relating to taxes and assessments on a person that is a party to an agreement with the authority; and establishing the Knik Arm Crossing fund." 1:54:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, SPONSOR, communicated that HB 23 primarily worked on the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) and the effort to build a bridge across Cook Inlet. The bill would allow a public-private partnership to move forward. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the bridge would cross Knik Arm. Vice-Chair Neuman confirmed that the bridge would cross Knik Arm. He detailed that the bill would allow KABATA to form a partnership with a private investor. The legislation would also increase the authority of pass-through federal bonds from $500 million to $600 million. He relayed that his staff would provide a sectional analysis. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that an extensive committee conversation on HB 23 would occur at a subsequent meeting. Vice-Chair Neuman discussed that the goal was to reduce costs in safety corridors. He spoke to the danger of the current highway systems and to the importance of reducing traffic. He shared that the Mat-Su Borough had provided information on future expansions into Point MacKenzie; the information showed a prospective town-site plan in anticipation of the bridge. The area was located north of the 14 square mile industrial port where a potential pipeline could run. He expounded that a rail spur would be located in the area and modules for Prudhoe Bay were built there as well. He pointed to new information from the Department of Revenue (DOR) related to moral obligations. He looked at the last page of a DOR letter and observed that the commissioner had tremendous confidence in KABATA's revenue projections and financial analysis. He discussed earlier testimony by Representative Mike Hawker related to the benefits of moving a project forward with private sector help. He stated that the public-private partnership was a new model being used across the United States to provide increased funds for transportation projects; users also paid for the projects. 1:58:57 PM Vice-Chair Neuman emphasized the importance of the legislation to his community and further west into the Mat- Su region. He relayed that one of the goals was to turn state resources into jobs for Alaskans. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that a slideshow would not be presented during the meeting. REX SHATTUCK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, provided a sectional analysis: Section 1 repeals and reenacts AS 19.75.211(a). Authorizes the authority to borrow money and issue refund bonds on which the principal and interest are paid out of and secured by (1) the gross revenue derived from fees, rents, tolls, rates, charges, and other revenue; (2) revenue received by a private person or enterprise that has entered into a public- private partnership agreement with the authority; or (3) any revenue or money appropriated to the authority for that purpose, except a state tax or license. Section 2 raises the limit on the amount of aggregated bonds the authority may issue to $600,000,000. Section 3 adds a new subsection to AS 19.75.211 that requires the authority to submit to the state bond committee a description of the bond issue before issuing bonds. The bonds may not be issued unless the state bond committee finds that the revenue can reasonably be expected to be adequate for payment of principle and interest on the bonds. Section 4 amends AS 19.75.221(h) to specify what must be deposited in the reserve fund, which includes revenue derived by the authority from fees, rents, tolls, rates, charges, or other revenue appropriated for that purpose; and other revenue available to the authority. Section 5 adds new subsections to AS 19.75.221. Subsection (i) specifies the specific purposes for which the money in the reserve fund can be used. Subsection (j) allows the authority to transfer income or interest earned by the reserve fund to other funds or accounts of the authority as long as the transfer does not reduce the reserve fund to less than the reserve fund requirement. Subsection (k) specifies how to value securities the fund is invested in to compute the amount of the reserve fund. Subsection (1) requires the chair of the board to notify the governor annually of the amount required to restore the reserve fund to the reserve fund requirement. Subsection (m) defines "reserve fund requirement." Section 6 amends AS 19.75.261 to exempt any real and personal property, assets, income, or other interests held by a private person or enterprise under a public- private partnership from all ad valorem taxes on real or personal property and special tax assessments of the state or a political subdivision of the state. Section 7 adds a new section, AS 19.75.345, that establishes the Knik Arm Crossing fund. Representative Gara asked whether there was a cap on the reserve fund. 2:03:38 PM Vice-Chair Neuman replied that the fund would be capped at $150 million. He detailed that the governor's proposed transportation plan included $10 million for the current year and $35 million for the next four years. Representative Gara asked whether the fund could go beyond $150 million. He asked for the location in the bill. Vice-Chair Neuman replied that it was not expected to reach $150 million. He did not know whether there was a cap. He noted that the KABATA board chair was available for technical questions. Co-Chair Stoltze noted there was not an effort to exceed the $10 million appropriation [for the current year]. Vice-Chair Neuman agreed. He added that if the bill moved forward, but the governor did not sign the contract, the money would be returned to the general fund. Representative Gara surmised that there was no cap [on the reserve fund], but that people would be careful about the amount. He pointed to past testimony by some stating that the project could be short by $1.5 billion due to a lack in toll revenue; he understood that KABATA disagreed with the statement. He asked whether the state would be responsible for making up the difference if tolls were not adequate to cover the cost of bridge operation and construction in the long-term. MICHAEL FOSTER, CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KNIK ARM BRIDGE AND TOLL AUTHORITY, replied in the affirmative. He added that the funding would be subject to appropriation. Representative Gara noted that the bill did not contain language specifying that the state could owe the money. He wondered if the moral obligation was related to how the bonds worked. Mr. Foster answered that the public-private partnership financial plan model specified that KABATA was responsible for making the availability payments. He explained that the reserve fund would cover payments to the private developer in the initial years when a shortfall in revenue would occur. He expounded that the financial market was reliant on the "subject to appropriation" language, specifying that the state would secure any payments that KABATA could not make. 2:06:53 PM LARRY DEVILBISS, MAYOR, MAT-SU BOROUGH (via teleconference), testified in strong support of the legislation. He stated that every mayor in the Mat-Su Borough supported the project. He discussed that the community was in the process of laying out two town-sites that would be located at the northern end of the project; the location included new high school and middle school projects. He stated that without the infrastructure from KABATA the community was paying a price in blood. He stressed that current transportation infrastructure needed to be taken in a different direction because the fastest growing areas were on the west side of the region. He was shocked to see that the fatal injury rate per 100,000 miles was 22.48 on the Knik Goose Bay Road compared to 17.3 on the Parks Highway, 13.1 on the Turnagain Arm Highway, and 13.2 on the Seward Highway. He emphasized that the infrastructure was needed for residents' safety. He reminded the committee that the importance of the issue went much further than the borough; the Alaska Municipal League Conference of Mayors had voted in support of the project the prior year. Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the tragic [highway] statistics from the Mat-Su Valley. 2:11:46 PM DAN SULLIVAN, MAYOR, CITY OF ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. He stated that the project would create over 1,000 jobs during its construction phase. He discussed that people were stranded when Glenn Highway closures occurred; the bridge would provide an important alternate route. He communicated that the Port of Anchorage was the primary state port, which generated significant truck traffic through the downtown area; the bridge would divert the traffic away from downtown. He believed the reduction in truck traffic would improve the quality of life in the city. He stated that over 98 percent of Anchorage's developable land had been developed; he believed the bridge would provide access to new undeveloped land for commercial and residential use in Mat-Su. He opined that a bridge with access to developable land was a great economic development concept in light of population growth in Mat-Su. He communicated that with population growth in Anchorage and Mat-Su, the Glenn and Parks Highways would be expanded; the projects would cost billions of dollars. He believed accommodating an alternate route that would provide toll revenue and would not require highway expansions was a "win-win." Representative Gara referred to Department of Transportation and Public Facilities testimony that the highway expansions would take place with or without the bridge. Mr. Sullivan replied that a near-term expansion in conjunction with the bridge may preclude another expansion later on. 2:15:35 PM VERNE RUPRIGHT, MAYOR, CITY OF WASILLA (via teleconference), vocalized strong support for the legislation. He spoke to population growth in the Mat-Su region. He stated that the project would provide a second route to and from Anchorage and would provide a shorter trucking route from the Anchorage port to Fairbanks. He mentioned the potential for heavier cargo and freight from Point MacKenzie. He remarked that if the project had been done over 30 years earlier it would have been significantly less expensive. He opined that population growth in Alaska would not let up. He believed that the expansion of the Parks Highway corridor in tandem with the bridge would be helpful. He stressed that wider and faster multilane highways were not the answer as discovered in the Lower 48. He stated that a bridge would save truckers time and would open a better connectivity at a lower rate. He was unsure how the financing would all work, but he believed the project was needed for the state's economic health and growth. He emphasized that the project would be a strategic piece of infrastructure on an American national defense level. The bill would tie Port of Anchorage and Mat-Su into the Fairbanks area. He shared that the project would have been stalled for an undetermined period if Wasilla had not brought actions against the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation System (AMATS) in 2009. Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Mr. Rupright for standing his ground. 2:19:12 PM SUSANNE DIPIETRO, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the legislation. She suggested that the bill was not about building the bridge, given that the legislature had previously passed enabling legislation for KABATA; the bill related to the financing mechanism for the project. She believed Sections 4 and 5 of the bill took an unprecedented and needless approach that would obligate the state to cover unlimited shortfalls in the project expenses. She detailed that the bill would create a reserve fund to be funded by legislative appropriation and KABATA would use the money to pay its debts and obligations to a private partner. She referenced language in Section 5(l) detailing that KABATA would tell the governor and legislature the amount needed in the reserve fund on an annual basis to cover debts. She noted that the language may seem innocuous; however, it provided a pledge to ratings agencies that the legislature would be responsible for covering any debt due to insufficient revenues. The markets would understand that the debts would be backed by the state. Ms. Dipietro acknowledged that the legislation did not require the legislature to appropriate money annually; however, a failure by the state to honor the moral obligation would be treated as a default. Subsequently, markets would downgrade the state's credit rating. She cited a DOR letter to former Senator Joe Thomas warning about the hazard (dated March 30, 2011, copy on file). She believed passing the bill would set the state up for a "Hobson's choice"; the legislature could refuse to appropriate funds, which would result in damage to the state's credit rating or it could continue to spend money that the state may not be able to afford. She emphasized that using a moral obligation reserve fund to cover operating expenses had never been allowed in Alaska and should not be allowed for the [KABATA] project. She expounded that the project would greatly expand the existing financial risk the state would be exposed to by the project. She stressed that passing the bill could create financial exposure that could cause rating agencies to negatively respond when reviewing the state's credit rating for future bonds. She pointed to existing statute that currently allowed KABATA to create a reserve fund without committing the legislature to continuous appropriations for the life of the project. She urged the committee to delete Sections 4, 5, and 7 of the legislation. 2:23:39 PM Representative Kawasaki noted that the letter mentioned by Ms. DiPietro did not appear to be included in members' packets. Ms. DiPietro believed the information had been provided to committee members, but could follow up with the letter. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the [DOR] letter would be provided to the committee. 2:24:19 PM AVES THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation on behalf of the association. The organization believed the bridge would provide a needed link to the Mat-Su area, that it would establish an efficient freight corridor to Interior and northern Alaska, and would offer a new route to the Port of Anchorage, which would alleviate truck traffic in downtown Anchorage. Additionally, the association hoped that the project would provide congestion relief on the Glenn and Parks Highways. Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Thompson if he liked both SB 23 and HB 23. Mr. Thompson replied in the affirmative. 2:26:26 PM PAUL GROSSI, LOBBYIST, IRON WORKERS OF ALASKA, spoke in support of the legislation. The organization believed the bill would provide jobs for Alaskans and would establish a corridor towards development that would increase future jobs. Additionally, the organization believed the project was vital for [highway] safety. He told an anecdotal story related to the highway; the organization's manager had been stuck on the highway as a result of a closure due to a police chase for over 8 hours. He urged the committee's support for the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze recalled the specific highway closure. 2:29:00 PM TOM BRICE, ALASKA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the legislation on behalf of the council. He cited safety concerns, the need for additional access, and the opportunity for further economic development as reasons for the council's support. Representative Gara asked for verification that safety concerns on Knik Goose Bay Road and other areas could be alleviated by widening roads. Mr. Brice replied that laborers generally appreciated expanding access throughout Alaska including Lynn Canal Highway and Knik Arm. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that a right-of-way acquisition related to the Palmer Wasilla Highway corridor had been estimated to cost over $150 million. 2:31:31 PM BOB FRENCH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the legislation. He stated that it was important to keep in mind that the bill related to KABATA's current financial plan that would require a moral obligation of the state. He stated that the lack of a low interest federal TIFIA [Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act] loan would result in higher financing costs. He stated that the key missing piece of information was how the factors and the accuracy of KABATA's toll revenue predictions would result in some unknown cost to the state. He remarked that a legislative audit intended to provide guidance on the issue had not been released to the public. He referred to a DOR letter addressed to Senator Joe Thomas stating that the authorization used in the legislation should be further defined to eliminate the ability of a private party to securitize the monetary obligations of KABATA. He noted that DOR had come out with a Request for Proposal (RFP) in January that was supposed to: ...review, verify, and confirm recommended financing structures for the state's participation in the Knik Arm crossing. The selected consultant will be providing assistance to the state in comparative financial analysis of certain aspects of the project's financing proposals. It will advise on the impact of the state finances by participating in the project and advise on the most advantageous terms for the state's participation. Mr. French stated that unfortunately there had been a protest of the bid award, which meant that the finance committee would not receive the information unless the RFP was reissued. He recommended waiting to hear the legislation until KABATA had submitted a current financial plan and independent, expert reviews were available. 2:34:37 PM Representative Gara asked why the current financial plan was different than the prior plan. Mr. French responded that the current plan relied on $500 million in TIFIA financing, which represented roughly half of the project financing. He continued that when KABATA had been denied the federal funding the prior year, the authority had been told that if any federal money was provided that it would be no more than 33 percent of the project's costs. He furthered that as a result, at least $200 million in funding would be missing. He stated that any other financing option for the $200 million would result in higher costs. He communicated that KABATA had testified in prior meetings that the reserve fund could exceed the $150 million by $100 million or more due to the higher financing costs. He believed the cost could be approximately $2.6 billion more. 2:36:15 PM LOIS EPSTEIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the legislation. She stated that the proposed Knik Arm bridge was not ready for construction and was not a financially sound investment using the so-called innovative financing mechanism. She relayed that it was not reasonable to assume that the bridge would improve safety on Southcentral roads; there were many ways to improve road safety and building an additional road was not one of the strongest solutions. She stated that the bridge's financial plan showed KABATA receiving a $500 million low-cost federal loan; however, it had not been approved for the loan during its five prior attempts. She communicated that the proposed toll was among the highest in the country; therefore, many drivers would likely take the free Glenn Highway alternative. She furthered that KABATA's toll revenue forecasts were based on its consultant's projection of Mat-Su population growth, which was far greater than projections from other sources including DOR and the UAA Institute of Social and Economic Research. Ms. Epstein continued that its bridge revenue projections were inconsistent with all other experts including AMATS. She noted that KABATA's consultant put most future growth in the western region of the borough, not in the Wasilla/Palmer areas where most experts believed the most growth would occur. She was disappointed that the state's plan to conduct an independent audit of bridge toll revenue was recently canceled. She relayed that any needed Glenn Highway expansion could be toll-funded including levying tolls only at peak times in order to spread out traffic; electronic tolling could be used, which would prevent the need for drivers to slow down. Ms. Epstein pointed to a project cost of $2.6 billion and noted there were substantial costs to the state that had been unaccounted for by KABATA. She urged committee members to spend time analyzing the project to ascertain how much the project would cost the state on an annual basis. She stressed that inaccurate traffic projections had resulted in an annual subsidy of more than $2 million for the Whittier tunnel, which was a much smaller toll project; traffic had peaked in 2007. She emphasized that a subsidy could reach $4 million per month. She accentuated that the bridge was not a wise fiscally conservative investment and that it would harm the state's transportation infrastructure as a whole by syphoning away money that would otherwise be spent on maintenance and upgrades to existing roads and bridges. 2:39:52 PM JAMES KENWORTHY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill. He addressed the state's liability in the project and pointed to Section 5 of the bill. He relayed that the state would have a moral obligation and KABATA would annually certify how much working capital it needed the legislature to appropriate to the reserve fund; the state's credit rating would be adversely impacted if the legislature did not appropriate the money. He expected that the contingent liability would cut the state's credit rating if the bill passed and a contract was signed in the fall. He recommended obtaining a DOR opinion in writing related to the effect of the provision on the state's credit rating. He suggested looking to other reserve fund legislation that included language specifying that it did not include an obligation of the state. He emphasized that HB 23 included the most open-ended blank check of all reserve funds considered by the state. Mr. Kenworthy addressed the size of the cost related to the project. He referenced a memorandum he had provided to committee members (dated March 27, 2013, copy on file) that documented a minimum cost of $2.6 billion. He stressed that Wilbur Smith (the traffic consultant used by KABATA) had a record on all of its national projects of overestimating toll revenue by 118 percent; two projects in South Carolina and California had gone bankrupt and others were having their finances restructured. He believed the $600 million extra to finance the bridge through a private party made no sense; KABATA's August 2012 financial sheet showed that the private partner would put in $72 million in equity and would take out $737 million in cash flow. He stated that the difference between the State of Alaska (which could borrow long at less than 4 percent) and KABATA's estimate (that they would finance at a 12 percent annual payment) was $600 million sent outside the state. Mr. Kenworthy continued that KABATA had 17,000 fewer jobs than the Mat-Su Borough's current forecast. He relayed that KABATA's forecasts assumed over 4 people per household, while the actual number had been between 2.6 and 2.8. He stated that KABATA's projection of 36,000 bridge trips per day in 2035 was a result of inflated numbers including larger families and more people. He noted that KABATA's number was twice the amount projected by CH2MHill. He concluded that the tolls would be off by a factor of 2. He believed the legislature should wait to review the audit; KABATA had a copy and comments were due on April 4, 2013. Mr. Kenworthy spoke to how the project's liability compared to other projects under consideration including a dam, the pipeline, and other. He cautioned that the credit rating hit would raise the price of other projects before the upcoming year. He estimated that deficits were approximately $55 million per year until 2035 and would increase to $90 million per year due to substantial balloon payments included in the availability payment. He stressed that the deficits were more than the state was providing to AMATS in Anchorage or to Mat-Su; therefore, the bridge deficits would be more than the state aid. He wondered how the issue would be sorted out. He wondered if the cost would be put on the state debt service for allocation to pay $3,500 over a 35-year period. He stressed the importance of obtaining financial plan if the state was considering financial guarantee. He relayed that the August 2012 plan contained four lanes of revenue and only two lanes of cost. He believed the Legislative Finance Division should review the information or the legislature should wait for the release of a recent audit. He emphasized the need for a financial plan that did not factor in TIFIA as a loan source and that only included traffic from four lanes of revenue when the cost of a four lane bridge was included. He stated that showing four lanes of traffic on a two lane bridge equated to an extra $1.9 billion. Mr. Kenworthy concluded that the plan should be for a 9,200 foot bridge; estimates in 2007 had been conducted for an 8,200 foot bridge. He discussed a settlement with the Municipality of Anchorage that would add costs to the east approach road. He relayed that KABATA had not followed its geotechnical consultant's advice to conduct more drilling on the east side of the inlet; there was clay in the area and it was not known how deep the pilings would need to be. 2:46:16 PM Representative Gara was concerned about the potential state liability related to toll revenue and the cost of construction and operation. He wondered if Mr. Kenworthy had an estimate and asked about his qualifications. Mr. Kenworthy replied that KABATA's estimate for toll revenue was $4.2 billion over 35 years. He pointed to his memo and relayed that the figures had been volatile since 2007; the projection had been as high as $6 billion; it was $4.8 billion in 2011. He stated that all other estimates were half of the estimate. The second issue related to the four lane/two lane financial calculations. He explained that it was necessary to get the balance sheets to a minimum bond-cover ratio of approximately 1.3 (i.e. $1.20 to $1.40 of revenue to cover $1.00 of cost); KABATA's traffic studies showed over 22,000 trips per day. He stated the number was much higher than capacity on a restricted highway by 2026; there were four lanes of traffic with only two lanes paid for through 2051. Representative Gara asked for an estimate of the state's moral obligation. Mr. Kenworthy estimated the figure to be $2.6 billion, which he had provided in a paper titled "The Real Cost of the Knik Arm Bridge." He pointed to $2.1 billion in KABATA's projected toll revenue that he did not believe would come to fruition. He reiterated an issue related to the projection for a four lane bridge. He addressed the lack of a TIFIA loan that had been included in KABATA's financial plan. He stated that TIFIA loans were currently 3.2 percent; however, private market revenue bonds were approximately 7 percent. He believed the bottom line did not relate to the traffic or the TIFIA loan, but to the fact that the bill would provide a complete state guarantee to pay whatever KABATA communicates is necessary to fund the availability payments under a 35-year contract. He emphasized that the cost of the contract with the consortium was not known; the current estimate was $2.7 billion and previous estimates on KABATA's balance sheets had been up to $4 billion. He added that the state would suffer a credit downgrade if it did not make up the difference to the availability payments. 2:51:11 PM DARCY SOLOMON, MEMBER, MAT-SU BOROUGH ASSEMBLY (via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. He believed that testimony against the bill contained fallacies. He had been one of the original KABATA members. He discussed vision that had been responsible for developing infrastructure in the United States and in Alaska. He recalled the vision to create a 360-degree intermodal transportation corridor that would bring the economies of Anchorage and Mat-Su together; the plan had begun with Port MacKenzie. He stated that there was a three-legged stool including the port, the rail spur to the Interior, and the Knik Arm Bridge. He believed that numbers presented by opposition did not take into consideration the value of what the vision brought to Alaskan residents. He emphasized that the people of Alaska overwhelmingly favored the bridge. He discussed that former Senator Ted Stevens had stated that the bridge could be built if Port MacKenzie was constructed. He addressed transporting natural resources from the Interior and bringing the workforce over from Anchorage. He pointed to a 1,500 bed prison in the area that was one-third full and employed 400 individuals. He stressed that it was necessary to focus on the benefit that the vision would bring and not the cost. He did not believe prior testifiers had been in support of other infrastructure projects including the rail spur. He opined that the bridge would be explosive and worthy for Mat-Su, Anchorage, and the North Star Borough. He emphasized that the project would benefit the state. He stressed that the project was one of the Mat-Su Borough's top priorities. He believed the project would move the economy forward exponentially. 2:56:36 PM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. Representative Gara noted he had a question related to the moral obligation. Co-Chair Stoltze communicated his preference to have the discussion when there was more time. Vice-Chair Neuman stated that none of the testifiers in opposition to the bill were experts in traffic analysis. He read from a DOR letter written by Commissioner Butcher dated March 30, 2011 (copy on file): Finally, you asked about by confidence in the revenue projections and financial analysis provided by KABATA in its March 1 TIFIA letter of interest. KABATA has retained CITI, one of the largest and most successful financial services firms in the world, especially as it relates to government financing of infrastructure projects, to develop its financial models. KABATA retained Wilbur Smith, a firm that has advised on many successful projects to do its traffic and toll models. I am confident that the revenue projections and financial analysis are objective and done to the highest of professional standards. This is the type of work that will be accepted and relied upon by the institutional investors that may be interested in financing this project. Vice-Chair Neuman expressed emotion over misstatements that he believed had been made. He discussed current financial restraints and the search for ways to supplement and diversify revenue. He stressed that the bridge development would provide over $1 billion in private industry investment and 1,500 jobs for the state. He remarked that the state was close to $1 billion in deficit and pointed to the increased number of people on food stamps. He stressed that the number would continue to increase. He believed it was important to do everything the state could to partner with private industry to create jobs. He mentioned safety issues. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the date on the DOR letter from Commissioner Butcher should be changed from March 30, 2010 to March 30, 2011. 3:01:09 PM Vice-Chair Neuman noted that the bill moved the project forward to a final design and contractual agreements that would be reviewed by the Departments of Revenue, Transportation, and Law. He stated that road projects were not typically brought back before the legislature for approval; he believed that doing so would be time consuming. He noted that the bill allowed the chief executive under the Department of Law to ensure that the state's interests were protected. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the bill would be revisited in the near future. HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 3:02:41 PM AT EASE 3:22:06 PM RECONVENED