JAC 06 BUDGET HEARINGS 01/20/2006

 

 

JAC BUDGET HEARINGS JANUARY 20, 2006,

AGENCY 027  SCHOOL FACILITIES COMMISSION, & CONTINUATION OF #060 OFFICE OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS

 

      0 ~ 1/20/2006 8:02:18 AM ~ Start Recording

     13 ~ 1/20/2006 8:02:31 AM ~ Hines - School Facilities Commission

   1:23 ~ 1/20/2006 8:03:41 AM ~ Bubba Shivler - appreciate time and efforts of JAC and other agencies, task and hours.  Budget plus handout #157

   2:15 ~ 1/20/2006 8:04:33 AM ~ Theresa Kunkel - booklet aligned with budget p. 4  Strategic Plan p. 10 starts Exception request -request 2 positions be made permanent

   6:38 ~ 1/20/2006 8:08:56 AM ~ Simpson - temporary positions due to timelines 3-4 yrs. ago.  Sense to sunset them 2-4 years down the road again.

   7:09 ~ 1/20/2006 8:09:27 AM ~ Kunkel - requests and work load has expanded, will request additonal 5 positions

   7:40 ~ 1/20/2006 8:09:58 AM ~ Hines - give details for need

   7:49 ~ 1/20/2006 8:10:07 AM ~ Kunkel - financial assistance and inspectors, Gov. rejected request for admin. assistance Handout 417 projects in 2005-06, project reequests have doubled to 1,017.  Same paperwork goes regardless of  number of requests.

   9:52 ~ 1/20/2006 8:12:10 AM ~ Hines - average length of process time?

  10:05 ~ 1/20/2006 8:12:23 AM ~ Kunkel - accounting system set up, then coordinate with districts, public meetins

  10:44 ~ 1/20/2006 8:13:02 AM ~ Shivler - lots of windshield time and many meetings, Anderson, Jones have seen extensive meetings.

  11:23 ~ 1/20/2006 8:13:41 AM ~ Shivler go thru conceptually, then individually graph first in handout.  We still have considerable amt. of last appropriation in bank for projects in process.  $673m requested in next biennium.  What can we appropriately do? 1I projects are health and safety, do first, 116 projects for $220,652,041.  5% SFC contingency, need to put into separate accounting. Want flexibility to use funds to build a project that is ready to go. Project Opportunities account, put together groups of projects with large amts.  Can bring larger contractors to do large projects.  WY contractors? 9 districts with smaller projects, WY contractors used these as a project opportunity. Use same plan, economies.  Go forward more quickly. 3 yrs. into project, court order, get this done, behind, working as hard as possible, misunderstanding on budgets and design when working with districts.  If we could get 4-5 designs the districts would approve, we could go forward.

  19:59 ~ 1/20/2006 8:22:17 AM ~ Shivler - $220m requesting + $134m in project opportunity request.  We still have $180m allocated but not yet spent. Some districts have a $20m of projects that have not been done. Operating budget $60m, review and analysis, bids have been high statewide and regionally, we have added 15% to projects anticipated and in process, a set aside not a slush fund, cover increased costs.  We have underestimated cost of building schools.  Hope increased costs will slow and funds won't be required. Main point budget with many aspects, need all to work.

  24:00 ~ 1/20/2006 8:26:18 AM ~ Hines - Emergency fund? On top of 5% contingency?

  24:08 ~ 1/20/2006 8:26:26 AM ~ Shivler - $1m

  24:39 ~ 1/20/2006 8:26:57 AM ~ Shivler - yes, building a HS in Westminster.  Request Cheyenne $40 sq. ft. more in WY.  What cost in Cheyenne, add 19% for labor and availability, lack of large contractors in WY, lack of mechanical, electrical contractors.  Our construction industry is stressed.

  27:31 ~ 1/20/2006 8:29:49 AM ~ Hines follow budget book

  27:42 ~ 1/20/2006 8:30:00 AM ~ Nicholas - global, Gov. Rec. and goldenrod have $174m booked for coal lease bonuses, to meet cap. cons. budget, $130m transfer, if more CLB more, may not need all. Affect other budgets.  Were we to consider only funding first year of biennium, can we lower encumberances for schools, are going to build, but fund from supplemental budget with more CLB $  Can we identify first year costs of biennium?

  31:33 ~ 1/20/2006 8:33:51 AM ~ Shivler - had similar conversation last year.  We have not spent all.

  32:10 ~ 1/20/2006 8:34:28 AM ~ Nicholas - if under contract, encumbered, they are used

  32:31 ~ 1/20/2006 8:34:49 AM ~ Shivler, could go thru and plan to give you a $ We are still finding out our needs.

  33:26 ~ 1/20/2006 8:35:44 AM ~ Nicholas - start mark-up next week, if alternative for 1 year bids, $ needed to encumber,  show us how much you need.

  34:42 ~ 1/20/2006 8:37:00 AM ~ Shivler - shorten design process, may be eliminated if going to protypical schools.  Could be done. Lose some flexibility, be specific as to which schools we will build

  36:01 ~ 1/20/2006 8:38:19 AM ~ Nicholas, could be simpler.  Reduce appropriation?

  36:54 ~ 1/20/2006 8:39:12 AM ~ Shivler - $100m project usually staged over 2-3 years, go from project to project.

  38:09 ~ 1/20/2006 8:40:27 AM ~ Nicholas does not affect encumbered and only affects new biennium, could do effective immediately

  38:40 ~ 1/20/2006 8:40:58 AM ~ Sommers - no additional CLB planned in 2007-2008, could do soemething.

  39:37 ~ 1/20/2006 8:41:55 AM ~ Nicholas - in competition w/Hathaway and other needs

  40:13 ~ 1/20/2006 8:42:31 AM ~ Simpson p. 69 graph referenced

  40:50 ~ 1/20/2006 8:43:08 AM ~ Shivler -

  41:31 ~ 1/20/2006 8:43:49 AM ~ Kundel - $180m also include minor cap. projects

  42:10 ~ 1/20/2006 8:44:28 AM ~ Shivler - we have districts w/projects ready to build.  We have bidders looking for work, bonding requirements limit contractors who can bid.  Projects of opportunities bid whole package, and go with ones ready to build.

  43:49 ~ 1/20/2006 8:46:07 AM ~ Kundel-p. 13 two field inspectors - assessment on all buildings, not use outside consultants.

  44:47 ~ 1/20/2006 8:47:05 AM ~ Kunkle - p. 1 overview of project Gov. denied admin assistant.  Really need. Architect educational consultant for plans review to work with school districts. p. 14 consulting services, $625,000 based on historical costs, #3 Professional development, Gov. approved #4 Replacement of 8 computers, + 3 new needed for new positions

  47:25 ~ 1/20/2006 8:49:43 AM ~ Anderson - perform inspections in-house take on some of MGT inspections?

  48:28 ~ 1/20/2006 8:50:46 AM ~ Shivler yes, they reviewed every 2 yrs.  Changed to do 1/2 of all schools each yr.  Anomolies, scores raised without improvement, some dropped w/$3m improvement.  Some scored that were torn down.  They changed scoring system.  Needed a different way.  Have done 3  5 year plans, should update every other year, on alternate years, project managers would do an assessment.  Use same scoring mechanism used by MGT.

  53:57 ~ 1/20/2006 8:56:15 AM ~ Shivler - I am project manager for half of state, just hired inspector for western part, certified inspector, want to place 4 project managers in quadrants of state.  Hard to find inspectors.

  55:08 ~ 1/20/2006 8:57:26 AM ~ Warren - Gov. denied due to size of agency.

  55:34 ~ 1/20/2006 8:57:52 AM ~ Kunkel - HR admin. person would have to share in admin. work

  56:44 ~ 1/20/2006 8:59:02 AM ~ Jorgensen - value of construction done?

  56:57 ~ 1/20/2006 8:59:15 AM ~ Shivler liability?

  57:07 ~ 1/20/2006 8:59:25 AM ~ Shivler - draws verified by inspection, state would not be taking a liability on that.

  58:30 ~ 1/20/2006 9:00:48 AM ~ Kunkel p. 2 of handout Operating budget only 1% of total

  59:29 ~ 1/20/2006 9:01:47 AM ~ Anderson - field inspectors MGT reduction in contractural services?

1:00:37 ~ 1/20/2006 9:02:55 AM ~ Kundel reduction is not to replace an AWEC position

1:02:44 ~ 1/20/2006 9:05:02 AM ~ Jorgensen p. 21 inflation protection is cost of delay.

1:03:16 ~ 1/20/2006 9:05:34 AM ~ Shivler - correct

1:03:25 ~ 1/20/2006 9:05:43 AM ~ Hines why need effective immediately?  Bills you cannot meet beofre July 1?

1:03:50 ~ 1/20/2006 9:06:08 AM ~ Shivler - many of projects are out for bid, better bids in winter planning for summer work.

1:04:22 ~ 1/20/2006 9:06:40 AM ~ Hines - $ not spent?

1:04:44 ~ 1/20/2006 9:07:02 AM ~ Shivler - encumbered, projects are underway.

1:05:20 ~ 1/20/2006 9:07:38 AM ~ Nicholas not actually encumbered until bid is accepted and signed, pipeline projects with plans to sign.

1:06:02 ~ 1/20/2006 9:08:20 AM ~ Shivler - accurate, but that money needs to be in place, architects.  Uncomfortable to start design and not have $ set aside to get it done.

1:07:03 ~ 1/20/2006 9:09:21 AM ~ Hines - next figure for 07-08 approved, could some of that money be used for those projects?  Inflation protection tied to all, not single budgets.

1:08:11 ~ 1/20/2006 9:10:29 AM ~ Shivler, hope we don't have to use that $

1:08:21 ~ 1/20/2006 9:10:39 AM ~ Simpson - encumbered, estimated costs, any not tied for later process, any just estimates?

1:09:00 ~ 1/20/2006 9:11:18 AM ~ Shivler - probably are.

1:09:27 ~ 1/20/2006 9:11:45 AM ~ Simpson - estimated costs encumbered?

1:09:50 ~ 1/20/2006 9:12:08 AM ~ Shivler - no

1:10:07 ~ 1/20/2006 9:12:25 AM ~ Simpson at least had a design, estimates?

1:10:44 ~ 1/20/2006 9:13:02 AM ~ Kunkel - gave explanation of terms.

1:14:08 ~ 1/20/2006 9:16:26 AM ~ Kunkel - p. 27 major maintenance

1:15:25 ~ 1/20/2006 9:17:43 AM ~ Simpson projects approved but never fund, not carried on our books and don't say they are encumbered.

1:16:20 ~ 1/20/2006 9:18:38 AM ~ Nicholas - 417 projects encumbered by Commission. Money there until completion or de-appropriated.

1:17:45 ~ 1/20/2006 9:20:03 AM ~ Summers - not technically encumbered, but our budget process encumbers.

1:18:17 ~ 1/20/2006 9:20:35 AM ~ Hines - is this agency treated differently than other agencies?  Reversions?

1:18:43 ~ 1/20/2006 9:21:01 AM ~ Sommers - only applies to cap. construction section of bill.  Apply to all agency cap. con. money stays in bill until completion.  Do not revert unless project is not built, down road.

1:19:54 ~ 1/20/2006 9:22:12 AM ~ Simpson - p, 35 $220m

1:20:31 ~ 1/20/2006 9:22:49 AM ~ Nicholas - fund 5 year program

1:20:56 ~ 1/20/2006 9:23:14 AM ~ Summers asking for amt. based upon estimates of what they think they can build + some flex authority to move money around as needed.

1:21:53 ~ 1/20/2006 9:24:11 AM ~ Simpson - clarifies

1:22:58 ~ 1/20/2006 9:25:16 AM ~ Shivler - insuffient budgets on project due to rising costs.  Don't have a construction industry that can handle our needs. Could save 7 - 9% if could build in less than 3 yuears.

1:24:33 ~ 1/20/2006 9:26:51 AM ~ Nicholas - when establish budget for construction, bonding capacity how do you make sure amount of work won't drive up costs.  Should we slow down our projects??? Need to pace ourselves in economical way.

1:25:39 ~ 1/20/2006 9:27:57 AM ~ Case - suggest that we seriously consider this - putting our whole state at jeopardy.  Take bitesize unit - do great things for private sector as well.

1:29:17 ~ 1/20/2006 9:31:35 AM ~ Jorgensen - Most of state lives w/in 15 miles of border.  May need to open up competition to out-of-state.   Need to look at our policy - state preference - many need to relax this Big factor in bids is competition

1:31:24 ~ 1/20/2006 9:33:42 AM ~ Case-those are good comments - need as much competition as possible - can support getting rid of state preference - this gets rid of trying to grow companies from within state

1:32:24 ~ 1/20/2006 9:34:42 AM ~ Nicholas - In Laramie the bids are being blown out of sight.  We need to break the tide- if state continues this- less worried about delay cost- need to have families to put in schools- want them to move here and stay

1:34:06 ~ 1/20/2006 9:36:24 AM ~ Jorgensen - could delay and stretch - not have to go to Chicago to get help- have group in here from SLIB soon and they'll hear that we have spent all our money

1:35:26 ~ 1/20/2006 9:37:44 AM ~ Hines - need to move on

1:35:38 ~ 1/20/2006 9:37:56 AM ~ Shivler - great debate - we have it everyday.

1:36:03 ~ 1/20/2006 9:38:21 AM ~ Kunkel -p. 24 of major handout- map of school facilities and the priority

1:37:40 ~ 1/20/2006 9:39:58 AM ~ Kunkel- are invisioning that districts can get together and bid projects  We are looking for flexibility -

1:39:05 ~ 1/20/2006 9:41:23 AM ~ Simpson - How do you get the flexibility you need?

1:39:24 ~ 1/20/2006 9:41:42 AM ~ Kunkel - It would really hinder the large projects.

1:40:02 ~ 1/20/2006 9:42:20 AM ~ Nicholas - If we give you the $250 mil you will have considerable flex.  Why not give flex w/entire budget you have?

1:41:05 ~ 1/20/2006 9:43:23 AM ~ Shivler-  You're right, we weren't prepared to come forward and ask for over 600 mil.  We need something out of constuency money.

1:43:05 ~ 1/20/2006 9:45:23 AM ~ Nicholas - It may be the method.  What I hear is that if don't get right price you won't build.

1:44:17 ~ 1/20/2006 9:46:35 AM ~ Shivler - Have new approach w/ how we work w/ school districts.  We're hoping to get done a little quicker and have money to do it.

1:45:06 ~ 1/20/2006 9:47:24 AM ~ Hines - Next

1:45:17 ~ 1/20/2006 9:47:35 AM ~ Kunkel - p. 26 in handout  Appendix A Appendix B  Appendix C - asking for legislative approval and flex authority Appendix D - legislative approval  p. 27 in handout book - $638,860,479  is amt. of districts' request

1:49:32 ~ 1/20/2006 9:51:50 AM ~ Simpson - Ap. C - project flex???

1:50:07 ~ 1/20/2006 9:52:25 AM ~ Kunkel - Yes p. 33 of handout  We are requesting $220,000,000 is what we are requesting.    Might be able to do mandated projects.

1:52:08 ~ 1/20/2006 9:54:26 AM ~ Warren - Clarification

1:52:19 ~ 1/20/2006 9:54:37 AM ~ Hines - further questions on Capital Construction

1:52:34 ~ 1/20/2006 9:54:52 AM ~ Kunkel - pg. 34 of handout  p. 37  -

1:53:39 ~ 1/20/2006 9:55:57 AM ~ Simpson - on goldenrod - Where is that $11 mil?

1:54:03 ~ 1/20/2006 9:56:21 AM ~ Kunkel - for value engineering

1:54:34 ~ 1/20/2006 9:56:52 AM ~ Jones - Where does the co. reside that does the value engineering?

1:54:54 ~ 1/20/2006 9:57:12 AM ~ Shivler- Washington state and Idaho

1:55:15 ~ 1/20/2006 9:57:33 AM ~ Jones - Why is the value engineering not done w/in the state?

1:55:33 ~ 1/20/2006 9:57:51 AM ~ Shivler - We have very few companies in state that will give up their opportunity to bid by doing our value engineering.  Can't bid on project if are value engineers.

1:56:52 ~ 1/20/2006 9:59:10 AM ~ Jones - is it put out for bid ?

1:57:08 ~ 1/20/2006 9:59:26 AM ~ Shivler - Yes

1:57:15 ~ 1/20/2006 9:59:33 AM ~ Kunkel - App. D - Minor Capital projects - asking for all minor capital projects be funded

1:57:54 ~ 1/20/2006 10:00:12 AM ~ Hines - Any other questions?? Thank you.

1:58:27 ~ 1/20/2006 10:00:43 AM ~ Pause

1:58:27 ~ 1/20/2006 10:12:49 AM ~ Resume

2:04:01 ~ 1/20/2006 10:18:23 AM ~ Continuation of State Lands & Investment - Director Boomgaarden, explained handouts of info. requested yesterday by JAC

2:05:41 ~ 1/20/2006 10:20:03 AM ~ Nicholas Gov. note?  Weighted sales tax?

2:06:45 ~ 1/20/2006 10:21:08 AM ~ Nicholas decision being made by SLIB?

2:07:22 ~ 1/20/2006 10:21:45 AM ~ Boomgaarden-not a SLIB board

2:08:08 ~ 1/20/2006 10:22:31 AM ~ McVey - $30m distribute by 70/30 split, the $50m is 50/50 split, Steve has plugged # into

2:09:09 ~ 1/20/2006 10:23:31 AM ~ Sommers - can provide spreadsheet, 2 separate  splits used.  Based on GR.

2:10:06 ~ 1/20/2006 10:24:28 AM ~ Hines need handout when work budgets next week.

2:10:22 ~ 1/20/2006 10:24:44 AM ~ McVey - October distribution

2:10:31 ~ 1/20/2006 10:24:54 AM ~ Sommers - 2 distributions, Oct. of 06 + 07

2:10:51 ~ 1/20/2006 10:25:14 AM ~ Petersen basis for towns slighted by cities?

2:11:19 ~ 1/20/2006 10:25:42 AM ~ McVey - Gov. felt need at county level was not being addressed.

2:11:46 ~ 1/20/2006 10:26:08 AM ~ Nicholas -

2:11:54 ~ 1/20/2006 10:26:17 AM ~ Sommers - what was done in 05-06, then GR $80m  and GR to distribute.  We will put all on one sheet.

2:13:00 ~ 1/20/2006 10:27:22 AM ~ Nicholas - add $100m split out as GR

2:13:24 ~ 1/20/2006 10:27:46 AM ~ Sommers - part of $ 50/50 and part 70/30

2:13:40 ~ 1/20/2006 10:28:02 AM ~ Boomgaarden - disregard spread sheets, one you discussed will be more relevant.

2:14:06 ~ 1/20/2006 10:28:28 AM ~ Boomgaarden - Federal Mineral Royalties

2:17:44 ~ 1/20/2006 10:32:06 AM ~ Nicholas - Should have a gov's letter if going to shift here.

2:18:26 ~ 1/20/2006 10:32:48 AM ~ Boomgaarden - Would be happy to get a letter signed by the board.

2:18:55 ~ 1/20/2006 10:33:18 AM ~ Hines - Would like to have letter.

2:19:11 ~ 1/20/2006 10:33:33 AM ~ Philp - Would like to have list of ones that were funded.

2:19:23 ~ 1/20/2006 10:33:46 AM ~ Boomgaarden - Will be happy to do that.    Amendatory language to footnote - look at red printing on handout for today  Counties would get to specify

2:21:56 ~ 1/20/2006 10:36:18 AM ~ Simpson- way I read that language it might create a rush to get under the wire.

2:22:48 ~ 1/20/2006 10:37:10 AM ~ Miskimmins-

2:23:47 ~ 1/20/2006 10:38:10 AM ~ Petersen - 8 counties - how were they chosen?

2:24:13 ~ 1/20/2006 10:38:35 AM ~ Nicholas -going to gov's footnote - how will cities and counties agree

2:25:53 ~ 1/20/2006 10:40:16 AM ~ Boomgaarden - Rep. Simpson does have a point.  Inadvertent exclusion of some counties - That is reason we think that need to have footnote

2:27:44 ~ 1/20/2006 10:42:06 AM ~ Nicholas - not heard of Local Gov. Coord. Council

2:28:00 ~ 1/20/2006 10:42:23 AM ~ Boomgaarden - From gov's office

2:28:31 ~ 1/20/2006 10:42:54 AM ~ Mayor Evenson - explaination of council

2:29:28 ~ 1/20/2006 10:43:50 AM ~ Nicholas - would like to know why they can be here.

2:30:21 ~ 1/20/2006 10:44:44 AM ~ Hines - The co-chairman agreed to allow this.

2:30:47 ~ 1/20/2006 10:45:09 AM ~ Evenson - Gave how council was created.    Gov asked us to come up w/ plan to how were impacted w/ natural gas, etc.  Rec. approx. $390mil from them.  Decided to ask for $100mil.  Should not ask for operational money - just for infrastructure  Thought that allocations should go to the county commissioners.  Each county could write their own rules.    Rumors out there think that we should be able to spend impact money where we want to rather than having the 5 elected officials tell us what and where to spend.

2:41:23 ~ 1/20/2006 10:55:46 AM ~ Warren - When mention about approval process by 70% of people?  How do you measure that?

2:41:54 ~ 1/20/2006 10:56:16 AM ~ Evenson - In counties it might be a little different.

2:43:12 ~ 1/20/2006 10:57:34 AM ~ Warren - Is a little complicated to me.

2:43:34 ~ 1/20/2006 10:57:57 AM ~ Evenson - We believe that we can work on that or the money would come back to the state the next year.

2:44:19 ~ 1/20/2006 10:58:41 AM ~ Warren - All of this will be in the two bills???

2:44:39 ~ 1/20/2006 10:59:01 AM ~ Evenson - Am working with legislators to get this particulars ironed out.

2:45:12 ~ 1/20/2006 10:59:35 AM ~ Petersen - With my experience I think that you will have a lot of money that is returned.

2:45:41 ~ 1/20/2006 11:00:03 AM ~ Evenson - Have hard time that they won't come to some kind of agreement.

2:47:01 ~ 1/20/2006 11:01:23 AM ~ Philp - some more explaination - How is the weight going to be??

2:47:31 ~ 1/20/2006 11:01:53 AM ~ Evenson -

2:48:19 ~ 1/20/2006 11:02:42 AM ~ Philp - Would they be voting on pkg. of projects or on one by one?

2:48:39 ~ 1/20/2006 11:03:01 AM ~ Evenson - Don't know

2:48:49 ~ 1/20/2006 11:03:11 AM ~ Petersen - For impact counties - how were the counties chosen?

2:50:05 ~ 1/20/2006 11:04:27 AM ~ Evenson - Gov had an intern to work on this -  Lincoln County has received $4mil more than any other county.

2:51:20 ~ 1/20/2006 11:05:42 AM ~ Petersen - What is the definition of impact?  Surrounding counties have impacts also.

2:51:58 ~ 1/20/2006 11:06:20 AM ~ Evenson - Went to those that had natural gas drilling.

2:53:06 ~ 1/20/2006 11:07:28 AM ~ Simpson - Your county inc. Gillette and Wright has about 85% of population???

2:53:48 ~ 1/20/2006 11:08:11 AM ~ Evenson- County Commissioners and city of Gillette.

2:54:19 ~ 1/20/2006 11:08:42 AM ~ Nicholas - We know what has happened is the smaller communities have bargained - state has real experienced with that.  Have to think about the best way.  Look at property taxes in Campbell - in '04 had over $100K per person.  Are you leving your sales tax?

2:58:24 ~ 1/20/2006 11:12:46 AM ~ Evenson - We thought that because we couldn't participate in SLIB and that other counties could.

2:59:46 ~ 1/20/2006 11:14:09 AM ~ Nicholas - appreciate that you have inc. revenues  Did you go out and access the needs?

3:00:27 ~ 1/20/2006 11:14:49 AM ~ Evenson - Have file full of needs from counties. $100mil vs. $63mil

3:03:25 ~ 1/20/2006 11:17:47 AM ~ Warren - When in decision making process did you think about other avenues?

3:04:10 ~ 1/20/2006 11:18:33 AM ~ Evenson - Don't think 5 elected officials in state should tell us how to spend.

3:04:58 ~ 1/20/2006 11:19:21 AM ~ Warren -

3:05:22 ~ 1/20/2006 11:19:44 AM ~ Boomgaarden - SLIB board decided impact

3:06:54 ~ 1/20/2006 11:21:17 AM ~ Warren - would like to see rules of impact -for $10mil

3:07:22 ~ 1/20/2006 11:21:44 AM ~ Meuli - what plan to do for non impacted counties - what about counties that have over $13K people??

3:07:57 ~ 1/20/2006 11:22:20 AM ~ Boomgaarden - under present program there are rules for matching -  may be supplementing rule criteria

3:10:17 ~ 1/20/2006 11:24:39 AM ~ Meuli - Laramie Cty would have to have 50% match  If some of the policies of DEQ in place we would have a hard time to make our match.  You feel like this is fair?

3:11:59 ~ 1/20/2006 11:26:21 AM ~ Boomgaarden- Our office was not involved - no opinion

3:12:36 ~ 1/20/2006 11:26:59 AM ~ Simpson - I'm not convinced to vote for this yet.  Non impacted counties are at disadvantage.  Needs greatly exceed these revenues?????? I'd like to see your justification for this.

3:13:58 ~ 1/20/2006 11:28:21 AM ~ Anderson - You need to continue to see about impact communities, there are other impacts - military installation, pipelines, etc.  Need to see what impact really is.

3:15:37 ~ 1/20/2006 11:29:59 AM ~ Nicholas - real serious problem w/ gov. office creating ad hoc committee-  I call them benefits, not impacts!!!  The impact is a benefit.  We give you the opportunities.We have to look at the whole state.

3:20:00 ~ 1/20/2006 11:34:22 AM ~ Boomgaarden - p. 91 - Transportation Enterprise Fund - earnings from Transportation Trust Fund.

3:21:10 ~ 1/20/2006 11:35:32 AM ~ Hines - Thank you

3:23:35 ~ 1/20/2006 11:37:56 AM ~ Stop Recording