HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE March 4, 1999 1:20 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Beverly Masek, Chair Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair Representative Bill Hudson Representative John Cowdery Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Allen Kemplen COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE BILL NO. 84 "An Act relating to international airports revenue bonds; and providing for an effective date." MOVED HB 84 OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 84 SHORT TITLE: INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS REVENUE BONDS SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/10/99 184 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/10/99 185 (H) TRANSPORTATION, FINANCE 2/10/99 185 (H) FISCAL NOTE (REV) 2/10/99 185 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 3/04/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 Telephone: (907) 465-6977 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on purpose of HB 84 and answered questions. JOSEPH L. PERKINS, Commissioner Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 Telephone: (907) 465-3901 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 84. DEVEN MITCHELL, Acting Debt Manager Treasury Division Department of Revenue P.O. Box 110405 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405 Telephone: (907) 465-3750 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 84; discussed the process of securing and selling the bonds authorized the previous year. CLIFFORD T. ARGUE, Staff Vice President Properties and Facilities Alaska Airlines P.O. Box 68900 Seattle, Washington 98168-0900 Telephone: (206) 433-3184 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 84. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-7, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Masek, Halcro, Sanders and Kookesh. Representatives Hudson and Cowdery arrived at 1:21 p.m. and 1:22 p.m., respectively. HB 84 - INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS REVENUE BONDS Number 0051 CHAIR MASEK announced the committee would hear House Bill No. 84, "An Act relating to international airports revenue bonds; and providing for an effective date." Number 0093 KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), came forward to explain the purpose of the bill. He reminded members that the original bond authorization bill was approved by the legislature the previous year by a vote of 58-2; he said HB 84 is the final piece of authorization required for the second phase of bonding for the funding requirements for the Anchorage International Airport (AIA) Terminal Redevelopment Project. He then called attention to three handouts: a full-color article from a trade magazine, "Passenger Terminal World," which discusses the terminal project; a page titled, "Uses of Funds"; and another page titled, "Summary Project Schedule." MR. PARKAN informed members that following his brief overview, Deven Mitchell from the Department of Revenue would discuss the process they had gone through in securing and selling the bonds authorized the previous year. Following that, David Eberle [Director, Construction and Operations, Central Region, DOT/PF], who is program manager for Gateway Alaska in charge of the terminal development project, would briefly review the "Summary Project Schedule." Mr. Parkan offered to provide a detailed briefing on the terminal project at a later date. Number 0285 MR. PARKAN testified as follows: As you know, last year we presented to the legislature a $230 million package for redevelopment of the Anchorage International Airport terminal. That bill was reduced by the legislature by approximately $25 million, in anticipation of the DOT successfully securing additional federal dollars to ... plug that hole. We'd applied for the federal dollars early on, but weren't as optimistic in our ultimate success, and so we included the full $230 [million] in our proposal. Well, we were successful in getting the letter of intent [LOI], the federal dollars - discretionary dollars - from the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. We had applied for about $67 million. ... I think our final approval was about $48 million, of which $25 million is for projects related to the terminal development project. The rest of the LOI funds are for a couple of other projects, one being the resurfacing of "6-left, 24-right" runway, the second phase, the first phase of which ... has just been completed. So, we did go after the federal dollars; we were successful in getting the federal dollars. The problem that we have experienced, though, is that the LOI - the letter of intent, the discretionary dollars - will come to us over a period of ten years. We need - to complete this project on time, and to satisfy our cash flow requirements - to get that money now. The purpose of this bill is to give us the authorization for the additional $25 million, to essentially borrow so that we can complete the project within the four-year time frame that the project should be completed. The money, the bonds, will not increase the cost of the project. The funds to repay the bonds will come out of the -- essentially, the funds that we will be getting from the LOI, from the FAA. It's a pretty simple bill, actually: No new money, no cost to the users, essentially. The federal government is going to be repaying the bonds, essentially. And we absolutely need to get these bonds sold this year in order to keep on with the schedule. Number 0497 MR. PARKAN referred to the handout titled, "Uses of Funds." He emphasized that $230 million has always been the cost of the project, and is still the cost today. The first of the 1999 Series Bonds was sold in February for approximately $179 million. The Phase II bonds, which are the subject of HB 84, would be for the $24.5 million. In the FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] column, the $26,300,000 is earmarked from federal highway dollars for the roadway that approaches the terminal; that has always been part of the project, as well. Mr. Parkan concluded, "We told the airlines that we would attempt to get additional federal dollars when we brought this project to them for their approval, and we have accomplished that, as well." Number 0574 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said as he recalled, when the $179 million was proposed the previous year, the project could be built for that. Although legislators had known the federal funds would be available, he believes they also knew that it wouldn't be in the form of cash. He asked whether Mr. Parkan believed they would get the extra money from the federal government as cash or in some other form. MR. PARKAN replied, "At the time when we were discussing this last year, the LOI application had been prepared. ... Basically, the LOI is a reimbursement. But it would be a certain amount of money to ... plug that hole that was taken out of the original $230 [million]. ... The scale of the project was never reduced. The project has always been a $230 million project. A portion of it would be funded out of the bonds, and a portion of it was hoped to be funded out of the LOI. The problem with the LOI is that we don't get it in one lump sum. If we'd gotten it in one lump sum, it'd be much easier to deal with our cash flow problem. But since ... it's spread out over time, we do need to get that bonding authority." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would ask his staff to review that, but he recalled that the airport was going to be built with the $179 million. He requested that the current committee hold an oversight hearing the next week, before passing HB 84 out, to see how the project is going, what the expenditures have been, and what design changes there have been. CHAIR MASEK indicated she and the department representatives had already discussed having such an overview. Number 0860 MR. PARKAN said last year's legislation had required the DOT/PF to provide the legislature with an expenditure report by January 1; he believes they had submitted a copy to every member. In addition, the legislature had assigned a staff member to sit in on the meetings, to do a review and oversight of the process for the project. Bob Walsh in Anchorage, who has been attending those meetings regularly, would be available for the legislature's assistance, as well. However, Mr. Parkan himself offered to provide an updated report on the project. MR. PARKAN restated that the project has always been characterized by the DOT/PF as a $230 million project. He explained, "We've never really said that it could be done for $179 million. If we only had $179 million, we would certainly have to cut something out of the original plan of finance." He said the airlines have approved a full-scale project. This is merely giving the DOT/PF the opportunity to take advantage of the federal dollars that they sought and got the discretionary funds for. Number 0938 CHAIR MASEK and REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY both said they had seen copies of the report; Chair Masek offered to have it at next week's hearing, in order to discuss any questions that might arise. MR. PARKAN agreed to that. He pointed out that in a project of this size, little things may change as they go from a conceptual design to the actual project design. He offered to share with the committee the latest developments in the schedule. He noted that they are getting ready to tear down Concourse "C" this spring and summer, for example, and are moving ahead fairly aggressively to get this down. They want to minimize impact to the traveling public. MR. PARKAN explained that an LOI is an application to the federal government for discretionary dollars. He stated, "The FAA looks at discretionary funds, and they sort of prioritize them. They won't give high ranking in a priority for a building. For the terminal building, for example, we wouldn't be able to really get funding - an LOI funding - for a terminal project; probably we'd be the only ones in the country that were ever successful to do that. They look at the asphalt and the aprons and the airside projects as higher priorities. So, we went after the airside portions of the terminal development project for our request, for the LOI. They look at that and say, ... 'It's our intent to give you X amount of dollars over the course of ten years.' And subject to the availability of congressional legislative funding, they will commit to giving us about $3-$3.5 million a year over the next ten years. So, it's basically a promise to us, so that we can count on that funding coming in for the purposes of establishing our CIP [capital improvement project] program. Number 1065 CHAIR MASEK asked what the time frame is to get this LOI. MR. PARKAN replied, "The LOI, we will start getting our first payment on that in March. As you may know, ... the authorization for the AIP [airport improvement program] runs out March 31 of this year. The FAA has committed to us that they will award that money to us - that first payment this year - by March 31. So, we're going to start getting it this year, and it runs out to the year 2008." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked when the money will be paid out for the different expenditures. Number 1133 JOSEPH L. PERKINS, Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came forward and answered as follows: You have to have sufficient money on hand for the contract amount. It has nothing to do with when you pay people. If I award you a $10 million contract, and I pay it over two years, I have to have $10 million sitting in the bank the day we sign the contract. This is the problem in this case. When we move on with this, if we don't have this $25 million to back us up, then we will not award these contracts. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether they would award all the contracts for 1999 right now for the whole project. COMMISSIONER PERKINS replied: We will be awarding a lot of them. However, if there is any question whatsoever about this $25 million not coming, then we are going to award no contracts in '99, because we're going to have to reduce the scope of this project, which means that we're not going to start off and do demolition and all of that. We'll have to fall back because our entire design, our entire contract development, has been based ... on a project for $230 million. And the $179 [million]: we never agreed that we were going to bring this project in for a bonded amount of $179 [million]. ... We asked for $203 or $204 [million], and we fully expected to get that other $25 million. In fact, in some of the discussions was that, 'Hey, we'll take the $25 million out, and if you can't get it from the feds, come back next year and we'll figure out another way to get it.' Well, we got it from the feds, so we're not coming back and asking for new money. All we're asking for is to let us bond with the equity against the bonds, the money that we got from the feds. That's really all we're asking. But to not approve this will stop this project for a year, completely, while we repackage, because we'll have to delete something. It gets fairly simple if you'll look at this sheet ["Uses of Funds"]. You're not going to take the FHWA money out. What you're going to probably do is you're not going to do the existing terminal renovation. Number 1259 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he has information that the scope of the project has changed, and he provided examples including the baggage facility and additional office space. He asked for confirmation. COMMISSIONER PERKINS responded: Representative Cowdery, what you do on a project like this, when you're in the planning stage, you've got all of these general-scope ideas; then you fill the scope in. And this is just like if I was to ask all the [legislators] how big you want me to build your office. It's going to be all big. ... When we opened this up, to go into design, then you had everybody wanting everything, from every airline and every user there. To give you an example, we did not have a baggage system in our original proposal. We have a proposal from the airlines. They want to put an $11 million baggage system in; we're not going to do that. We had a proposal, and we had looked at connecting the two terminals. Well, the connector is fine, as long as you walk on it. Now, ... we have people who want a moving walkway; so, instead of going to a $2 or $3 million connector, a moving walkway is probably going to get us up around $15 million. So, we have made decisions in that regard ... on the project. Number 1329 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether they were still going to have the connection, without the moving walkway. COMMISSIONER PERKINS replied: We may or we may not, because as these numbers change, and as we finalize the various things, we are constantly looking at ... our end product. And what we do, and what you always do on a major project like this, is you manage contingency; and that is exactly what we're managing right now, is the contingency that we have, as we distribute it out to those items ... that we would like to have. You will not get, in this project, everything that everybody wants; it'd cost another $100 million. And this is true no matter what you build, even in your own house. So, ... there's things that we're going to scope back, but I don't know exactly what they'll be as we're moving along. But one thing that you've always got to look at is if you are going to do something and forever keep an addition being built on it, by putting an extra foundation wall in, we should do that, so you can have the potential of expanding out. We're looking at those type[s] of things. And I attended a meeting about a month ago where we went through all of those various options that we have in the project. I'm pretty happy. I think they're doing a darn good job with it, and to tell you whether this walkway will go or not is going to depend a little bit on how much money we have left in this contingency as we go along. I would hope that we get something in; but we want to put something in that would preserve the ability to put a moving belt in, because I think ultimately you're going to need that. Number 1415 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated his understanding that there was a Senate hearing the previous week about passenger facility charges (PFCs) that could add up to $5 million per year. He said this project will go for four or five years from the time it is begun, and it seems that PFCs could solve some of the funding problems. He asked whether the DOT/PF has drafted any application for the PFCs. MR. PARKAN replied: We have started a process ... to draft up the PFC application. As we discussed in the recent PFC hearing that the committee had, we will go forward with an application, once we've satisfied the exemption requirements that we feel we need to have before we can get the PFC approved. ... We are in the process of drafting up our exemption requests. We'll be putting together our project lists; we have a meeting next week to discuss this internally with our consultant who is helping us with this project. That application, if the exemption language is approved administratively or through the legislative fix which we think is going to be necessary, could be ... as soon as this spring or as late as the fall. We won't go forward with an application until we have the exemption language, however. MR. PARKAN said they are getting the wheels turning. They will get it up to the point of whether or not the exemptions are included, to basically exempt rural communities not connected by a road system, and then they will go forward with that. He emphasized that LOIs are not used for terminal projects; in contrast, PFCs are almost always used for building projects, and not used as much for the airside projects. If they used PFCs instead of the LOI, they would potentially lose the LOI. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked that someone from the DOT/PF come by his office in order to save the committee's time, to discuss some of these matters before the oversight next week. MR. PARKAN agreed to work that out. Number 1609 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON stated his understanding that HB 84 increases the bond authorization from $280 million to $305 million, which is the $25 million mentioned. The additional bonds for $25 million would be underwritten by the proceeds or receipts over a ten-year period, through the LOI from the federal government. It would not cost anything in general fund monies. Furthermore, the previous year the legislature had dealt with the need to expand the airport terminal and had authorized the sale of bonds to cover that, which would in turn be paid for by the users of the airport. MR. PARKAN affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the time line is for selling the bonds. He asked whether any had been advertised or sold yet. MR. PARKAN said Deven Mitchell would address that in more detail, but yes, they had sold the initial bonds for which they received authorization the previous year; they had sold them in early February for $179 million. They hope to sell these bonds this summer. The process they went through with the bond rating agencies included this second issuance, and they have done a lot of the "due diligence" necessary up front with the bond rating agencies. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that last year the legislature had authorized the sale of $280 million in bonds. He asked why it had been that amount, rather than $180 million. MR. PARKAN replied that they have outstanding bonds for the parking structure at the airport, so it includes the existing authorization; it is a consolidation. He believes the last bonds were sold in 1986. Time is critical for this additional $25 million; those bonds need to be sold this year. Number 1729 COMMISSIONER PERKINS explained: If you [were] to look at the schedule, Representative Hudson, these items that are listed, we've got to have the money at the front end of all these items, as we award the contracts. So, you can see that the majority of the contracts are '99 and 2000. This time next year, we will have already needed to award the contracts that these bonds will support. Number 1776 REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH expressed concern about taking too much time on a minuscule $25 million to hold up a project worth $230 million. He said he wants to do everything he can to help Anchorage gets a good airport, which he uses frequently. He emphasized the need for the $25 million. Number 1814 MR. PARKAN informed members that because there would be a briefing the next week on the total project, he would hold David Eberle's testimony on the schedule until then. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that as someone whose district borders the airport, the airport is very important to him; he doesn't want to hold the project up and believes the additional bonds are important. However, he believes that any time elected officials ask questions about $25 million of taxpayers' money, the questions are probably well-asked. Number 1858 DEVEN MITCHELL, Acting Debt Manager, Treasury Division, Department of Revenue, came forward. He stated: To begin, I'll give you a little history on the issuance of the $179 million in bonds from the authorization given last legislative session. We were in mid-process, mid-issuance process, when the LOI was approved, and we obtained the authorization - or the authorization from the FAA - to receive the $25 million over the next ten years. With that in mind, we altered our issuance strategy somewhat, as Kurt [Parkan] pointed out, to be sure to point out to the financial community that we had the potential to issue this additional $25 million, given legislative approval. In that process, we met with the rating agencies who rate municipal bonds: Moody's [Moody's Investors Service], Standard and Poor's, and Fitch [Fitch IBCA]. The presentations that were given included the possibility of an additional $25 million in bonds. The result of those rating presentations was very positive. The airport system was upgraded by Moody's from A to A-1; upgraded by Standard and Poor's from A-minus to A; and Fitch, who hadn't rated the airport before, gave us an A-plus. And I don't know if you know what that means, but of all the airports that are rated across the country, that puts us in the top 15 to 20 percent. And so, it really shows the quality, and the perception of quality, that people have of the ... Alaska International Airport system. The next area that ... the possibility of an additional $25 million in bonds was discussed was the feasibility analysis that was done. In order to issue the $179 million, we had to have a feasibility study done to demonstrate that the airport system was fiscally strong enough to support the payments on those bonds. In that analysis, they included the potential, again, of an additional $25 million piece, and the payments that would be required for that additional piece. ... The response from the feasibility consultant was that the airport is more than strong enough to support the outstanding bonds, as well as this additional $25 million piece. The next area where ... the potential of a $25 million issuance was discussed was within the official statement, the official statement being the offering document for the $179 million in bonds that was sold. Again, the response was overwhelmingly positive. ... The bonds were sold within the state of Alaska more prolifically than any issuance had been in the past, over $20 million sold to residents in the state of Alaska. On a national level the original pricing, which was considered to be aggressive by the financial experts who were involved, the state bond committee and myself, the response to that was that the bonds were oversold four times. We had $800 million in orders for these bonds, that we only had $179 million available. We were able to reprice, and the result of that was that our average coupon for these bonds is less than 5 percent, 4.95 percent. The department has prepared a fiscal note for this additional $25 million in bonds. The anticipated maturities of these bonds are up to 25 years, that being based on the feasibility consultant's analysis and the -- Kurt [Parkan] could probably explain it more, but ... the FAA money being discretionary funds, you want to ensure that your system has the ability to meet the liabilities that it has incurred. So, if we were to go out and issue a ten-year maturity, then the system would have a harder time, if for some reason those discretionary monies didn't come through. There is the letter of intent that demonstrates that the monies are expected to come in, but if they would not, then that would put an undue burden on the system. MR. MITCHELL concluded by saying that from a fiscal perspective, the opportunity is there to ride the coattails of the very successful issuance they just closed in February. The interest rate jumped one-half percent recently, and there is no guarantee there would be such a low interest rate for the next issuance. However, they have positioned themselves to move forward if this authorization is approved. Number 2097 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether there is any method of recapturing the interest on the $25 million from the FAA or whether the state will just be stuck with that cost. MR. MITCHELL replied that the interest on these bonds would be paid by the system; it would come from the revenue fund. It wouldn't be captured, as currently anticipated. There is an anticipated issuance size of $25 million, so the actual cost over the years would be more than $25 million. He referred to the fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked about the $2,189,000. MR. MITCHELL explained that it would be the cost of the interest, figured at 7 percent over 25 years. Although that is very cautious, interest rates are subject to fluctuation and there is that possibility. For planning purposes, the department will use that $2.2 million as the annual expense. He added, "If it was the committee's prerogative, the size of the issuance could be modified to allow for the total of principal and interest, to equal the $25 million. That would be subject, again, to the DOT side and how that would affect their ability to ... complete their project." Number 2176 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether this interest was taken into account when the original cost of the project was figured. MR. PARKAN referred to the "Uses of Funds" handout. He pointed out that under Finance Costs, the $24,700,000 next to the asterisk includes both issuances. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether the $24,700,000 includes that amount, then. MR. PARKAN affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked what the interest rate had been on the initial $179 million. MR. MITCHELL replied that the average coupon was something like 4.94 or 4.96 percent, essentially 4.95; that is an average over the 25 years "from a low in the 3s to a high in the 5s, percents." CHAIR MASEK noted that there were no other testifiers in Juneau. Number 2243 MR. PARKAN informed Chair Masek that the DOT/PF had concluded its testimony; Mort Plumb from the Anchorage International Airport and others would be prepared to testify at the next week's project overview. Number 2268 CLIFFORD T. ARGUE, Staff Vice President, Properties and Facilities, Alaska Airlines, testified via teleconference from Seattle, Washington, in support of HB 84. He noted that he is also chairman of the Anchorage and Fairbanks Airlines Airport Affairs Committee, an organization that represents some 25 airlines which have signed operating ageements and which serve those two airports. He specified that his testimony would reflect the position of Alaska Airlines, as well as most of the other members of the committee, especially the following carriers: Reeve Aleutian Airways Incorporated, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, Federal Express ("Fed-Ex"), United Airlines, Reno Air, United Parcel Service (UPS) and American Airlines. MR. ARGUE emphasized that HB 84 is not a request for new or additional funding, but it simply provides dollars required on a cash-flow basis to pay for the terminal project, as originally approved by the airlines. The airport improvement program grant from the FAA, contemplated as part of the finance package last year, was not given in a lump sum but rather as a letter of intent, to be paid over a ten-year period. The bond issue will permit the project to be built on schedule, then be repaid over the life of the LOI. MR. ARGUE stated, "This bond issue was part of our original deal, and HB 84 should be approved as quickly as possible. At the same time, in accordance with earlier testimony that I and other airline representatives gave to a recent joint Senate and House Transportation hearing, the Alaska International Airport system should immediately apply for - and this legislature should endorse - the imposition and use of a $3 passenger facility charge to help pay for the Anchorage terminal expansion project, as well as other justified projects in Anchorage and Fairbanks airports. There is no reason to further delay the realization of this valuable source of revenue to the airport system, especially when Alaskans are already paying PFCs, which benefit various airports throughout the lower 48 states, and, more recently, to the municipal airport in both Juneau and Ketchikan." Number 2361 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated, "We had last year indicated that we needed this $25 million, and we anticipated getting it, apparently in one lump sum, without debt service; and we cranked that cost into the overall project. And now we find that we don't get it all in one cost; we have to borrow it, and it will be paid for back over a ten-year period of time. And I think, Representative [Halcro], you asked the question of whether or not the interest that would be accrued to this $25 million bond debt was to be reduced from the overall project cost, or it looks to me like we're 2-point-some million dollars short on the overall project, or 2-point-some-odd million dollars more to be paid back, either by user fees or some other source." MR. PARKAN again referred to the "Uses of Funds" handout. He said the $24,700,000 was for finance costs from the original plan of finance, when they developed the project with a $204 million bond issuance. He stated, "So, these are the same finance costs that we had originally; they're not as a result of the $179 million bill, but it was part of the original package." Number 2441 MR. MITCHELL clarified that the $2 million is the cost of capitalized interest for the first two years of the issuance. There won't be any additional payments required of the air carriers during the first two years, "as the interest payments will be made from principal, and that's the $2 million that Representative Halcro was referring to." CHAIR MASEK asked if there were further questions, then noted that HB 84 has another committee referral. She said that hearing the testimony that day, and because of the urgency and nature of this bill, she believes it would be good to move it forward. Number 2467 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move HB 84 from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). He asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB 84 moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee. TAPE 99-7, SIDE B Number 0006 CHAIR MASEK announced that the committee would invite the DOT/PF and others involved with the airport to come before the committee for an overview the following week, tentatively on Tuesday afternoon. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.