Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/20/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB371 | |
| HB378 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 378 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 371 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 371-STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
1:03:14 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."
[Version C adopted 3/18/14 was before the committee].
1:04:30 PM
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) summarized the bill. She reminded
members that the department has worked very closely with the DNR
on this bill and the bill has been refined as testimony was
given. The purpose of this bill is to clarify, streamline, and
remove duplicate processes in DOT&PF & DNR. The DOT&PF and the
DNR sometimes have duplicate authority - DOT&PF over
transportation facilities and DNR for vacant unappropriated
lands, as well as resource authority the DOT&PF doesn't have.
Therefore, the DOT&PF can do many of the same things, but what
has happened over time is that the DNR may not be aware of
actions the DOT&PF has taken or duplication in law has occurred.
MS. RICE said that bill works to remove the redundancy and
clarify the process, part of which is to streamline project
delivery and part of it as it relates to the public with respect
to land disposals. Once the DOT&PF is willing to give up a
small remnant or a road has been moved, the property owner must
go to both the DOT&PF and the DNR. For DNR, the land represents
a very small piece of land in comparison to other DNR land.
Property owners sometimes get lost in the process and are
harmed. Third, the DOT&PF would like to resolve bureaucracies
in terms of how the department manages transportation material
sites. The DOT&PF does not want to manage all the material
sites. She assured members that DNR will still have the ability
to give the public material out of the pits and manage them in
the same way, but the DNR will consult with DOT&PF on the ones
used for transportation purposes. She concluded that this is
the overview of HB 371.
1:07:12 PM
MS. RICE offered to cover the acquisition process to shorten
project delivery, Mr. Bennett will discuss improvements on the
land disposals and how to help neighboring properties, and Mr.
Lynch will discuss the material sites.
MS. RICE explained that some questions have arisen with respect
to property rights. She referred to flow chart in members'
packets [entitled "Typical DOT&PF Project Development Process"].
She recalled some comments that DOT&PF is project centric and
DNR is land centric, which is true; however, the projects are on
DNR's land and the DOT&PF builds access to the land. Further,
in managing lands DNR has typically been more focused on their
functions and often is less aware of the DOT&PF's process to get
a project delivered. The flow chart does not include how,
where, or why, but starts with project delivery. The orange
circles or clouds represent each time the DOT&PF formally
touches the public.
1:09:09
MS. RICE related the DOT&PF's informal process is ongoing.
Beginning with the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), all state or federally funded projects go through the
STIP process. Thus the STIP contains all projects regardless of
the funding type. This process requires an extensive public
process and once finalized a project undergoes an environmental
process. Most projects are federally funded so National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), is mandated, but even
though state-funded projects don't require it, NEPA tends to
affect every project. For example, she referred to the Elmore
Road project in Anchorage. This project was a $40 million
totally state funded project with 1,000 feet of bridge
constructed - mostly for mitigation - over federally controlled
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit facilities.
However, the state performed a NEPA document parallel with the
design process. In fact, she has never observed a process that
did not require NEPA's involvement. The NEPA process could
range from a checklist to a full-blown formal Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), depending on the input received from all
of the agencies the DOT&PF contacts during the process. During
the NEPA process, engineers analyze alternatives that will
physically meet the purpose, including material source, consider
costs, and discuss the project with the regulators, including
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the DNR, and the USACE -
the bottom right shows the list of permitting and regulatory
agencies.
1:11:45 PM
MS. RICE explained that the type of public process becomes
apparent. For example, the DOT&PF uses a checklist when paving
a road whereas other projects can be very extensive. Once the
DOT&PF gets through the public process, the project goes to
final design. In a state-funded process the DOT&PF may perform
the design work using a parallel process. The federal agencies
can use each other's documents for making decisions. For
example, if the FHWA is in agreement with the USACE, the Corps
will use the federal document so the agency doesn't have to
recreate the document. The process can include historic
properties or any number of a long list of considerations.
Although the communities have been involved, at this point the
DOT&PF must get a local government concurrence and begins
mapping the rights-of-way and identifies the DNR land needed.
However, the DNR's analysis can hold up the process due to their
backlog. Thus, the DOT&PF can certify a project or wait for
another year or two for DNR's approval. One purpose of HB 371
is to allow DNR to honor the process and the DOT&PF's decision-
making process to transfer the land. She acknowledged that it
might sound like a "land grab" but actually the bill allows one
agency to use another state agency's process to transfer the
land without starting the process anew.
1:15:46 PM
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-way Chief, Northern Region, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained the DNR
has worked to adopt uniform language across the three
authorities of aviation, highways and public facilities. As
just discussed the DOT&PF and DNR have overlapping authorities
that sometimes results in an unsolvable problem. For example,
the DOT&PF holds a highway easement at Eureka Lodge on the Glenn
Highway easement and DNR owns the underlying fee estate. The
departments have identified the problem that an adjoining
property owner has encroached in the right-of-way with sewage
lagoons. One solution would be for the DOT&PF to vacate the
easement, but to do so would only pass the problem on to DNR.
The DNR was unable to resolve the matter with a preference right
sale. Thus, no solution was available under the current
statutory language and the property owner is basically "left out
in cold." This bill would solve this problem since DOT&PF would
be vested with the fee simple title for the surface estate in
the existing transportation facilities. With the uniform
language the DOT&PF could dispose of the fee simple title
interest to this property owner without needing to involve DNR.
This would protect the state's interest by ensuring the same
types of reservations, such as the mineral estate, are reserved
just as it would be under a DNR land disposal process.
1:18:17 PM
MR. BENNETT pointed out one other issue is the land disposal
language in AS 35 requires DOT&PF to dispose of any excess land
to the person the department had obtained the land from, but the
party may no longer be available. He questioned whether the
person would even have any interest in obtaining the property.
Yet another party may want the land, would really benefit from
the land, and is willing to pay the fair market value. However,
under the current statutes the state cannot sell to the
interested party. This bill would solve that problem, he said.
MR. BENNETT pointed out another scenario, in which the state may
not have acquired an entire property but just a thin strip for
road widening. If the road ends up being relocated, it makes
sense that the excess strip would go back to the original owner.
In fact, to do anything else would "land lock" the parcel. The
proposed language would solve these types of problems and make
the state's disposal process much more efficient.
1:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether he was speaking to
Sections 4 and 5, which relates to DNR. He suggested that this
might be a global application.
MR. BENNETT answered that the revisions would be to Sections 2,
4, and 10, which specifically addresses the disposal language
for airports, highways, and public facilities. While these
provisions address the DOT&PF's current statutes, Sections 1, 6,
and 9 that vests fee simple title for the existing facilities
will now allow DOT&PF to dispose of the excess lands without
involving the DNR. In response to a question, Mr. Bennett
clarified that Sections 2, 4, and 10 relate to DOT&PF's land
disposal for rights-of-way for airports, highways, and public
facilities.
MR. BENNETT, in response to a question, referred to Sections 1,
6, and 9 that clarify the overlapping authorities that DNR and
DOT&PF have on existing airport, highway, and public facility
properties. For example, the DOT&PF only has an easement
interest on the Glenn Highway so the aforementioned sections
would vest fee simple title to DOT&PF so it can manage the
disposal by itself.
CHAIR P. WILSON reiterated that these are very small parcels of
land and DNR has more important parcels to contend with so
delays often occur.
1:24:07 PM
MR. BENNETT agreed that this would speed up the process;
however, some projects exist in which the department hits a
roadblock and cannot accomplish under the existing language -
for example, the Eureka Lodge project. In response to a
comment, he agreed that the DOT&PF and the DNR cannot resolve
the issues with the Eureka Lodge under the current language.
1:24:50 PM
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section,
Department of Law (DOL), reviewed Section 13, which relates to
DOT&PF's material sales contract exemption. He explained that
Section 13 is an amendment to DNR's Alaska Land Act. Currently,
AS 38.05.030 provides various exemptions to DNR's rules. For
example, the DOT&PF has a long list of exemptions, including the
railroad and the University of Alaska. This language creates a
new subsection [h] that would exempt the material sales
contracting requirements for DOT&PF's use of its pits. When
DOT&PF develops a road with cut-and-fill construction, sometimes
a deficit in the fill exists. The DOT&PF would open a material
site to obtain extra fill. When the project is finished the
material site contains the overburden and the site remains
available for later extraction of gravel, which are the material
sites under question. Under DNR's Alaska Lands Act authority,
the DNR can sell materials from state-owned material sites.
This specific rule applies to DOT&PF's sites since DOT's
material sites are state owned. He characterized it as
overlapping authority, but when DOT&PF enters into material
sites it must go to DNR to obtain a material sales contract.
Under the bill, Section 13 relieves DNR of the responsibility of
entering into contracts with DOT&PF.
1:27:46 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that the pits in
question are DOT&PF's pits.
MR. LYNCH answered that the DOT&PF's highway and airport pits
were opened by DOT&PF. In fact, DOT&PF carries the
environmental permits. When third party sales occur, the DNR
consults with DOT&PF on any intended sales and DOT&PF provides
the permittee with the environmental conditions necessary to use
DOT&PF's pits. He acknowledged that a private developer might
open a DOT&PF site for a subdivision. When finished, the DNR
would have another pit, but the vast majority of the pits are
DOT&PF's pits.
1:29:05 PM
MR. LYNCH pointed out that two main concerns have been raised.
First, Section 13 would give carte blanche authority to use any
state-owned pit. There are two reasons this is not the case.
First, this bill would amend the Alaska Land Act. Thus, this
bill provides an instruction to DNR that DOT&PF is exempt from
the contracting requirements under AS 38.05.550 - 38.05.565. A
list of pits open for material sales contracting is maintained
and this exemption would only apply to approximately 500 pits in
the state on the list. However, this bill does not amend
DOT&PF's statutes or give them any additional authority since
the bill would only provide DNR with an exemption from the
material sales contracts for DOT&PF's use of these pits. In
response to a comment, he agreed that this provision eliminates
DNR's role in the transaction.
1:30:50 PM
MR. LYNCH further explained that DOT&PF currently has the
authority over its rights-of-way and facilities. The bill would
remove one step in the overlapping authority between the two
departments, although DOT&PF would still act under its existing
authority.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that this could save time and money.
1:31:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that
Section 13 would only apply to the 500 pits associated with the
Alaska Lands Act.
MR. LYNCH read subsection (h), "Notwithstanding the provisions
in AS 38.05.550 - 38.05.56 ...." The DNR issues contracts for
the pits under the aforementioned statutes. Secondly, concern
was expressed that the DOT&PF would compete with the North Slope
oil and gas users. He responded that aside from the Dalton
Highway the DOT&PF doesn't have any reason or authority to go to
North Slope development areas to seek materials. Additionally,
the pits in question are the developers' pits and are not open
for third-party sales. So any North Slope pit that is open for
a specific DNR project is not one of the pits that DNR conducts
its third-party sales. This essentially relieves DNR the duty
to issue third party sales under its existing third party sales
contract provisions.
1:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS read an excerpt from Mr. Mylius's
letter dated March 12, 2014, which read, in part, "First, many
gravel pits on state land are developed by and the gravel sold
to private developers, municipalities, and other state agencies,
federal agencies or others." He asked whether that statement is
inaccurate if the 500 pits are DNR pits originally as provided
in statute.
MR. LYNCH answered no. Actually, DNR is authorized to sell
materials from DOT&PF's pits so DOT&PF uses and third-party
sales occur from these pits. He characterized them as shared
use permits. The DOT&PF and DNR both coordinate these sales so
problems have not arisen. He also recalled concern was
expressed about the depletion of pits, which thus far has not
been a problem. In fact, this bill wouldn't change the quantity
of materials. Finally, DNR's ability to waive contracting
requirements does not in any way cutoff third-party use of the
pits.
1:35:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that
Section 13 doesn't restrict DOT&PF so the department can take
whatever material they need from the pits since DNR will no
longer be the manager. He further understood this bill would
simplify the process. He asked what would protect the private
vendor or sale on pre-existing sales once DNR is no longer
involved.
MR. LYNCH answered that this coordination currently happens and
will continue to happen between the agencies. He said DNR and
DOT&PF coordinate this since the third parties will have
environmental conditions. For example, parties can't change the
water flow in the pit due to the Clean Water Act. The permit
outlines the conditions of use, such as identifying the area the
third party can use and the area the DOT&PF will use in the
shared usage. This effort will continue to happen. He
confirmed if there is a valid existing right or a future right
it would still fall under the same program.
1:36:53 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
explained that the pits being referred to are designated
material sites under AS 38.05.550. The current law says that
the state must designate a site in order to sell material from
the site to the public. Thus the department will go through a
public written decision identifying that the department will
sell materials for a certain number of years up to a certain
amount. Further, the decision outlines that the department will
conduct multiple material sale contracts at the site. The DNR
will issue material site contracts and does not need to public
notice each of the contracts. The contracts are issued to
anyone who asks for material so long as it is available.
MR. MENEFEE made a slight correction to Mr. Lynch's comments
since very few of the sites are sole-purpose sites and the DNR
sells to multiple individuals. Even on North Slope sites the
DNR sells to multiple people from the same pit. He acknowledged
that the DNR may have one operator who is the primary operator
responsible for permitting. He agreed with Mr. Lynch on the
coordination, such that if the DOT&PF is the pit operator anyone
else coming into the pit would be subservient to the permit
holder. This helps prevent violations on compliance with water
discharge, whether it is for DOT&PF, an oil and gas operator, or
anyone else who opened the pit. In response to a question, he
answered that the DNR has dual management authority on the pits.
Under the bill the DNR would not tell DOT&PF it needs a
contract, but the DNR would manage the pits and authorize use to
other entities. This management would be done under concurrence
of the DOT&PF. He highlighted that the bill puts DOT&PF in "top
dog" authority. If the DNR decides to issue another contract
the department would consult with DOT&PF for approval.
1:38:59 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that the biggest concern is
when people want to know if a third party has [a material site
contract] for a certain amount of material, whether the DOT&PF
can deny the material.
MR. MENEFEE answered that the DOT&PF would have the right to
take whatever quantity of material it needs, but he related his
understanding that if the DOT&PF wanted material it would need
to pay the third party. He suggested Mr. Lynch could describe
this in more detail. The existing contracts would not prevent
DOT&PF from taking all the material.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for further clarification.
MR. LYNCH explained that take Article 1, Section XVI of Alaska's
Constitution provides a private property right so if there is a
contract for the material DOT&PF avoid taking it; however, if it
was a necessity the DOT&PF would reimburse the private
contractor.
1:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding that Section 13
of HB 371 indicates DOT&PF would use the material for
construction and maintenance of facilities the DOT&PF is
constructing or operating. He asked, in DNR's experience, for
any other uses the materials would be sold for and to what types
of entities would buy them.
MR. MENEFEE answered that homeowners may want material for their
driveways, road, building construction, renewable energy or a
whole realm of construction projects. The DNR sells gravel,
sand, riprap used on habitat projects or boat launches. The
department also has hard rock that could be used for decorative
housing walls, and a whole slew of reasons exist why people buy
materials from state land.
1:43:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the North Slope Borough
might have competing claims for the land itself. He asked
whether specific language needed to be added.
MR. MENEFEE answered that this isn't just applicable to Section
13 but to any transfers to DOT&PF. He honed in on the question
the committee is getting to, which is that if the borough has
asked for municipal entitlement on the lands, and the DOT&PF
asked for land to be transferred - under Sections 3, 5, and 8 -
but the borough has selected the land for entitlement, the
entitlement would be subservient to DOT&PF's needs. For
example, if DOT&PF indicates it needs an airport and material
site, the DNR would likely deny the municipal entitlement at
this time. Conceivably, once the project was finished the
DOT&PF could give DNR the land, which could subsequently be
given to a municipality. However, it is likely the municipality
decided to select the land for revenue generation. He
acknowledged there is a tension and competition for the land and
this bill does put DOT&PF in first place. Thus, DNR would
adjust the municipal entitlement program to consider this aspect
as municipalities make land selections.
1:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related his understanding that the
DOT&PF's intent is for public need and necessity. He stated
that anything DOT&PF uses the land for would result in a public
benefit so the borough or other third party will also benefit.
MR. LYNCH, using the example of the material sites at Happy
Valley and Franklin Bluff, said that once DOT&PF receives sites
and develops the sites as DOT&PF's maintenance stations that it
will take an extra step from DNR to designate the sites as
available for material sales. He recalled a specific list of
sites where the public can receive materials. He suggested that
if DNR added those sites as designated sites, the municipality
could receive the materials along with any other third party.
To his knowledge the aforementioned material sites are not on
the designated material site lists.
1:47:59 PM
MR. MENEFEE said there is a difference between municipal
entitlements and individuals just receiving material through
material sale contracts. Municipal entitlements ask for full
fee simple interest in the land so there is competition in that
aspect. As Mr. Lynch described, which is also correct, if a
municipality or borough just needs material it could come to a
material site designation. Since the departments have joint
management authority under the bill, he asserted that DNR could
still designate a site per concurrence from the DOT&PF and could
sell material to the borough with concurrence of the DOT&PF. If
the DOT&PF didn't need all the material, the DNR could sell it
to the borough, just as it would for any other entity which has
happened in the past. Thus, there are two different aspects:
the municipal entitlement program and the material sales
contracts, he said.
1:49:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related his understanding that the
DOT&PF's priority is due to the specific purpose such as a road,
airport, or public facility that benefits the borough and the
public. The municipality shouldn't be making money at the
expense of everyone else. He said, "We're not just talking
about the State of Alaska's DOT&PF 'grabbing land' for some
future purpose." He understood the DOT&PF would be using the
land for a specific purpose. Thus, the bill would not preclude
a subdivision of the state from making revenue. Instead, it
sets up the priority that benefits everyone in Alaska.
MR. MENEFEE offered his belief that is correct. He understood
that it would be DOT&PF's intent to provide a public benefit.
He said he cannot speak for the boroughs as to whether the
DOT&PF should be in the top position.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the committee has not had any
comments from boroughs. No one has complained, she said.
1:51:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to the second point in the
letter. He read, "DOT use may also not be the most economically
valuable use of the land and DNR will therefore not have the
ability to deny a DOT request even if there is a higher or
better use of the land, such as land needed by a school district
or for a public school." He asked whether any examples that
might validate this scenario or if this is a purely theoretical
concern.
MR. MENEFEE responded that is what happens when the DNR makes
decisions on whether to designate a site to sell materials. The
standard the department will undergo is a best interest decision
or what is in the best interest of the state. This bill would
remove the decision process. He envisioned a situation might
arise that would need to be resolved in a different fashion.
For example, if a new pipeline is being built and material is
needed that DOT&PF also needs that normally the DNR would
wrestle the two interests and try to accommodate both. If not,
the department would identify one as being more important than
the other. Under the bill, if the DOT&PF asks for the material
site then the DNR would not issue the decision. Of course,
DOT&PF must evaluate the benefit through the department's public
process. In the event some higher better interest was brought
to the governor's attention, the governor might suggest the
department's use isn't a good idea. He characterized it as
being a different type of process and not one the DNR would
normally take.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that legislators would likely make
comments if it related to a pipeline. Either way, she
anticipated that there would be ways to intervene.
1:54:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for any specific examples in
which DOT&PF requested an easement or right-of-way that DNR
found was not highest and best use.
MR. MENEFEE cannot recall any denial although one request for a
potential corridor arose. Over time land was conveyed to
municipalities and the initial purpose was defeated due to how
segmented the corridor became. The DNR worked with DOT&PF and
the DNR closed the case since it didn't make sense any more.
That was the only instance he could recall, he said.
1:55:40 PM
MR. BENNETT reported that he served 30 years as right-of-way
chief for the Northern Region and he could not recall a
situation in which an application to DNR for a right-of-way was
denied. He said the reality is that DOT&PF provides public
infrastructure for transportation in the state. In all the
competing instances, whether it is for a school or a pipeline,
the projects rely on the DOT&PF to provide the infrastructure to
provide access to those sites. He envisioned it would need to
be a very important priority before one could consider other
types of projects.
MR. MENEFEE acknowledged that at certain times the DNR has gone
back to DOT&PF to identify other interests the DNR must
accommodate. In those instances the DOT&PF has either
reconditioned the application to adjust to the other needs or
the department has withdrawn its application. Once the DNR has
brought concerns forward, instead of denying the application, it
has highlighted the concerns. The DOT&PF might adjust the
project's size but DNR works diligently to find solutions.
1:57:53 PM
MS. RICE added she discovered the DOT&PF is not good about
contacting the Division of Mine, Land, and Water since the
DOT&PF would not know if someone applied with DNR. She
emphasized that this is something the DOT&PF will add into the
process so the DOT&PF will know any concerns or applications the
DNR may have earlier in the timeframe. She reiterated that is
the DOT&PF's intent.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that is important and she is glad to
have that on the record.
1:58:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 16 of HB 371, which
grants reciprocal easement rights. He asked for a brief history
and background and the reasons to do so.
MR. LYNCH referred to Version C. The first sentence was removed
and second sentence incorporates the reciprocal exchange. He
highlighted that a reciprocal exchange has been agreed to but
not all of the easements have transferred from the state
government to the federal government. The first sentence mimics
the federal statutes and language was removed to clarify that
DNR was not being asked to take any action. This provision
would authorize the DNR to extend the term of the easements
beyond the five year regulatory limitation upon a best interest
finding by the DNR's commissioner.
2:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that Mr. Mylius pointed
out 66 easement sites have been approved, but 67 have not. He
related Mr. Mylius's understanding that many of the remaining
sites do not have existing facilities and some are also
important access sites. He asked more specifically which sites
comprise the 67 remaining sites.
MR. LYNCH answered that the sites are all submerged land sites
and benefit the U.S. Forest Service such as log transfer
facilities, cabins, and trail access points. The revision to
Section 16 was to address Mr. Mylius's concern that the term
"grant" might direct DNR to make a decision on them so the
language was revised to make it clear that wasn't the case, but
was to give DNR the authority.
2:02:59 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON interjected Mr. Mylius's letter mentions the
proposed CS, Version C addressed his concern.
MR. LYNCH agreed noting Mr. Mylius issued a follow-up letter
dated March 19, 2014.
2:03:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked to double back to the
previous questions about the DOT&PF's priority on state land.
He referred to the highest and best use of land, recalling Mr.
Menefee mentioned when other uses or parties are identified the
DNR works with DOT&PF to resolve the matter to everyone's
satisfaction. He understood the purpose of the bill is to
streamline the process to make things more efficient and save
time. He asked whether the inter-agency time is mostly
paperwork "de rigeur" easements granted by DNR or if delays in
projects are due to actively working with DNR. He asked how
much time is typically involved. More specifically, he asked
how much time is involved if the DOT&PF wants land and no other
parties are interested as compared to an instance in which
DOT&PF wants land and other parties exist and the DNR works to
recondition the request.
MR. BENNETT answered that the interests vary in level from
rights-of-way permits to an interagency land management
assignment which would be a stronger interest for an airport,
and as previously discussed, a material site. Each is different
with varying complexity. He couldn't estimate a timeframe, and
it would also depend on what is on DNR's desk at the time of
application. He hoped to capture all the concerns of the public
in the process that Deputy Commissioner Rice outlined. The
DOT&PF doesn't want to end up in the situation in which the
DOT&PF has analyzed, mitigated, and commenced with the right-of-
way acquisition only to discover the parcel is being planned for
a campground. Although the DOT&PF has not yet had to appeal,
the DOT&PF might need to reinitiate the entire process to seek
an alternative site. There could be some other options;
however, the DOT&PF believes all the interests of the public
will be protected with the DOT&PF's process and nothing will be
lost by streamlining the process as the bill presents.
2:07:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, Version C, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, the CSHB 371 (TRA) was reported from
the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 378 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 378 |
| HB0378A.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 378 |
| HB 378 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 378 |
| HB 371 Smith Letter 2 3-19-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB_371 Mylius 3-19-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB371_miliusmillessmith_response3-20-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Support Johansen.msg |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371Support M Miller.msg |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |