Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/11/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| SB256 | |
| Adjourn | |
| HB311 | |
| HB54 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 357 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 414 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
3:13:03 PM HOUSE BILL NO. 54 An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall; and repealing provisions relating to relocating the capital, the legislature, or any of the present functions of state government. REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, SPONSOR, directed his comments to the legislation. He stated that the relative isolation of Juneau from the rest of the State is of concern to many Alaskans, particularly at a time when the legislature has come under increasing public scrutiny. Due to the location, many Alaskans are unable to afford the airfare, food and lodging to travel to Juneau to participate in the process. He added, over 25% of Alaskans do not have access to media outlets for watching Gavel to Gavel. The net effect is that during the legislative session, legislators remain isolated from the vast majority of Alaskans, being accessible only to lobbyists and special interest groups. HB 54 addresses the concerns voiced by Alaskans about access. The legislation provides an opportunity for all interested Alaskan entities to submit proposals to host the Alaska State Legislature. The proposals will compete on their merit and ability to meet the present and future needs of Alaska. Representative Neuman noted that the bill does not affect the State Capital, only the Legislature. HB 54 would create an environment, where the public and private sector partner together to share the benefits of hosting the legislature and the cost. He concluded his testimony, indicating that the bill would improve access to the legislative process for ordinary Alaskans by easing their physical access and improving the serviceable nature of the facilities. 3:16:47 PM Representative Nelson asked what purpose Juneau would serve without the Capital seat. Representative Neuman responded that even if the Legislature is not located in Juneau, it would still stand as the State Capitol. Many of the current functions would remain in Juneau. He added that the proposal does not preclude Juneau from participating in the process. Representative Nelson pointed out that presently, the majority of the current Administration operates outside of Juneau, pointing out that only one commissioner lives in Juneau. Representative Neuman agreed, commenting that was the Administration, not the Legislature. As members of the Legislature, legislators are responsible to the people of their districts. To allow access to those people in the public process is critical. Representative Nelson noted support for the public process. She indicated that the 90-day session hinders that process. She inquired the Mat-Su's participation rate in their City Council and school board meetings. Representative Neuman responded that there have been over 250 people at one meeting. Representative Nelson asked about the weekly assembly meetings. Representative Neuman responded often times, there is only standing room. 3:19:45 PM Representative Gara asked how many people comprises "standing room only". Representative Neuman suggested that depends on the issue and that their assembly hall is not that large. Representative Gara suggested that Representative Neuman's response to the number of people attending those meetings were for the issues that are the most heated and emotional. The question was how many "normally attend. Representative Neuman responded, it is fair to say a good amount participates. Representative Gara reiterated the question of how many people attend a normal assembly meeting. He noted that the question was asked and that it was not answered. Representative Gara understood that the bill proposed that communities that want a bid to build the legislative hall would have to offer a certain amount of acreage. He asked where in the bill that language was located. Representative Neuman replied that there is nothing in the bill indicating that specifically. The bill does state that if a community selects acreage on State land, the State should attempt to facilitate a transfer of that land over to that community. He supported the provision as it would help communities expand their land base. 3:22:53 PM Representative Gara asked where the verbiage regarding acreage donation was located in the bill. Representative Neuman referenced Section C, Page 4. Representative Gara clarified that the bill moves only the legislature not the capitol. Representative Neuman stated that the intent of the bill is to allow communities to submit a proposal to the Legislature for either approval of construction for a legislative hall. The bill does not stipulate that the Legislature will move. Representative Gara asked if there could be a situation in which Juneau proposes another site and the capitol moves there. Representative Neuman responded that if Juneau selected a different site, other than the existing properties, it would be up to the community to undertake the bidding procedure. There had been consideration of reconstruction or renovation of the existing site. 3:26:00 PM Representative Gara questioned if one of the purposes of the bill was to get the capital closer to more people. Representative Neuman responded that the entire purpose is to allow communities to submit proposals for construction of a legislative hall. He hoped to see a legislative hall located on the road system. There are 60 legislators who participate in that process with only three living in Juneau. He acknowledged that the issue is popular with his constituents. 3:27:40 PM Representative Gara agreed that one of the considerations is better access; however, there are arguments both pro and con for moving the legislature. One of the pro arguments is better access and that one could make a convincing case for moving it to Anchorage where the bulk of the population lives. However, moving it 40-miles away from Anchorage does not give the majority of Alaskans any better access. The bill as written has every chance of moving the legislation to a place just as unavailable to the Alaskan citizens as it is now. Representative Gara urged that a determination be made that the legislature not be moved to Eagle, Beaver or Willow, because there is no better access to those small communities. Representative Neuman pointed out that the bill does state "anywhere on the road system"; it allows communities to come up with a proposal, which they can be submitted for consideration. Accessing Juneau because of the weather and ferry system delays. He added, over half of all high school students reside in Anchorage and those students would like to participate in their legislative system. 3:31:27 PM Representative Hawker referenced the many comments made by Representative Neuman as the legislation providing an "opportunity" for communities to prepare proposals for a legislative hall. As he [Representative Hawker] read the bill, there is no language indicating the offering the right to propose to communities. He understood the language to provide the "solicitation of proposals for construction of the legislative hall". He asked if it was the intent of the sponsor that it was available to an innovative adventure-development corporation to step forward with a proposal. Representative Neuman said yes; he intended to provide a proposal for any entity to partner with a community, to submit a proposal. 3:33:06 PM Representative Thomas questioned if the sponsor would oppose language providing "the right of first refusal amendment. He worried about the already depressed economy in Southeast Alaska. He questioned why the sponsor would strip one part of the State's economy to enhance another area that is already thriving. He pointed out that in Juneau, there are only three legislators that get to go home at night and be with their family. Having the capitol in Juneau, creates a "level playing field. He urged that legislators take care of one another. Representative Neuman stated that the bill is not an attempt to place hardship on any community. He noted that Juneau has over one million tourists a year pass through. Every community in the State has its ups and downs and that Kenai also is suffering these days. He questioned if it is the Legislature's obligation to insure financial responsibility to any one community. 3:36:54 PM Representative Thomas responded that the Legislature did that when they rallied behind Anchorage and Fairbanks by not shutting down the military bases. Those communities were protected through actions taken by the full Legislature. 3:37:21 PM Representative Crawford read the back-up material including a conversation the sponsor had with a private developer and determination of a location of 1,000 land acres. He asked the profit motives to build on such a big and remote area that would only be occupied for three months a year. He questioned the inclusion of a judicial hall. He reiterated his question regarding the profit motives of the developer. Representative Neuman commented on the need for legislators to introduce legislation that is reasonable". Instead of just introducing the bill, he acknowledged that he had moved through the steps to determine how feasible the idea is. He had proposed the idea to the Mat-Su Mayor & the community, which determined some acreage & proposed the development rights to a developer, using that land. The investment consideration was around $200 million dollars, providing enough economic base to cover the cost of a legislative hall for an economic base of $70 million dollars. The remainder could go into housing projects & high-scale homes to help the developer recoup their initial development. The State would be able to lease the legislative hall. It would be private investment money going into a community, which could provide assistance to the Mat-Su Borough for reduction in property values. He maintained that there is a lot of investment consideration for communities to utilize for a plan. Representative Neuman pointed out that the Legislature is in charge of the recall process and because of that, it was recommended that the proposal provide for the capacity of a judicial hall in case those types of proceeding need to move forward. 3:42:28 PM Representative Crawford asked clarification about the intended community that would be built around the structured legislative hall with regard to how the developer would recoup their investment. He asked who would be providing the infrastructure, roads & the sewer systems. He questioned where the profit would come from. Representative Neuman did not know. He only wanted to be able to offer communities the option of submitting a proposal. Representative Crawford assumed that the conversation has happened in which the developers assumed there was a proposal possibility for this profitable option. He asked where that that possibility currently is at. Representative Neuman responded that he had meet with the Mat-Su Mayor and local developers in his district. 3:44:32 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze thanked Representative Neuman for his work on the legislation. He mentioned the history and passion of Juneau's capital position. He disputed comments made by Representative Thomas. He asked if the bill was proposing a plan like that previously proposed by Jim Clark and Mayor Botelho. Representative Neuman responded that the money that was spent on the previous plan came from the City & Borough of Juneau and that he did not know if those funds had been State subsidized. The bottom-line is to determine if communities can come up with a plan to move forward with the proposal. 3:47:24 PM Representative Kelly elaborated on the "death by a 1,000 cuts", indicating that he was not passionate about moving the capital. He inquired if members had determined that the current building is an inadequate space. He mentioned the good merit of the Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge (FRANK) initiative. He wanted to see the entire issue and prices associated with a move. He pointed out that there are many capitols located in the smaller towns and that by placing it in the largest population center is disconcerting because of the concentration of power. Representative Neuman viewed the bill as Juneau's opportunity to put the baby to bed. He pointed out that the current building does not meet fire codes and that the building is inadequate. The FRANK initiative attempts to define and uncover the social and economic deficiencies for the cost of moving the legislature. The proposed bill recommends that a building be built by private industry developers. He emphasized that the bill is about Alaska, not about Juneau and/or the Legislature. 3:53:16 PM Representative Gara advised that the issue is delicate because moving the capitol will destroy the economy in Juneau and that is not addressed in the bill. One option would be to insure for 20-years, all State Office building functions stay in Juneau even if the Legislature moves. He questioned if consideration had been made in the bill on how to minimize the damage to the local community. Representative Neuman responded that maybe it wouldn't move. 3:54:26 PM BRUCE BOTELHO, MAYOR, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, testified on behalf of Juneau in opposition to HB 54. He listed issues in which, he disagreed. He clarified that the bill is not a simple competition for a legislative hall. As noted by Representative Crawford, the bill requires a building that is designed to house not only the Legislature but also the Judiciary Supreme Court including a chamber. The another point of disagreement is that Juneau could look at renovation of the current building. To examine the specifications as directed by the Legislative Counsel for the building, one would find that it would be an impossibility to construct on the present site. Generally, for any community to have the capacity to fund the construction required for a new capitol, virtually eliminates most communities' ability to bond. He compared the proposed bill to HB 60, as submitted by previous Representative Rokeberg, the precursor legislation from which HB 54 was modeled. 3:57:57 PM Mayor Botelho reported that HB 54, which purports to be a competition for a legislative hall, is actually beyond that. It achieves that result by what he assumes is the most difficult part of the bill, repealing the FRANK initiative. He added, 37 states have their capitols outside of the major populated areas of that state. Mayor Botelho commented on the point of agreement and the source of commonality with Representative Neuman, quoting from the Alaska State Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 2., Source of Government. All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole." Mayor Botelho elaborated that language is the source of commonality in when Representative Neuman declares that all parts of the State should be able to participate in the legislative process. The difficult issue is the repeal of the FRANK initiative. The point is that there is no issue in the State's history over which the people of Alaska have been called upon to exercise their sovereign power found in the above listed section of the Constitution than over the question of where their government should be seated. It has been reaffirmed repeatedly, a three part proposition. • The people have the right to know and approve in advance, all costs of relocating the capitol or the legislature; • The people must be given the opportunity to make an informed & objective decision on relocating the capitol or the Legislature with all pertinent data concerning the costs to the State; and • The costs of relocating the capitol or legislature will not be incurred by the State without the approval of the electorate. Mayor Botelho advised that HB 54 repeals the FRANK initiative. He maintained that there will be costs to the State and if the sponsor believes there will be no costs to the State, why does the bill seek to repeal the initiative. 4:01:35 PM Mayor Botelho discussed the reasons that the bill attempts to repeal the FRANK initiative: • While Section 2 of the bill does propose that the option not require a lease payment, the provision can be repealed or amended by any future legislature or simply circumvented by using any financing mechanism, which does not obligate the State through lease payments. • The bill authorizes the transfer of an unlimited amount of State land to a municipality, at no cost, as long as the selected proposal includes language: "A site wholly or partially on State land". Mayor Botelho noted that a transfer of State land for relocation of the capitol or legislature is an appropriation and will be a cost to the State, just as a direct appropriation of money. Mayor Botelho raised the question regarding that the true cost of the proposal is withheld from the people until the project is complete. He asked if Alaskans should be deprived of an impartial review of what the costs are of the move. He stated that the message being conveyed by the bill is that the people should not be entrusted with the power to know the costs. Mayor Botelho urged members to determine any compelling reason, to override the repeated expressions of the people of the State through the FRANK Initiative. Co-Chair Meyer mentioned that he preferred the proposal over his own legislation as it offers any community the option to participate in the process. He referenced comments about the number of states that do not have their capitol city in the largest populated areas of their state; noting that in all states except Hawaii, citizens can drive to their capitol city and that makes Alaska unique. He disputed the message of the "cost to the State", explaining that this is the "people's government" & wanted to know the cost to the people, when airfare cost over $500 for each trip out of Juneau. Most citizens of Alaska can not afford that seat fare. 4:05:14 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze asked clarification between the City & Borough of Juneau, the taxpayers and the Alaska Committee. Mayor Botelho responded that the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) has regularly funded the Alaska Committee and the activities undertaken by that Committee such as Gavel to Gavel. Vice-Chair Stoltze believed that some of the general election ballot expenditures exceeded costs of running the Gavel to Gavel program. Mayor Botelho responded that was true during election campaigns in 2002. Vice-Chair Stoltze argued that in 2004, CBJ attempted to facilitate passage of measures that would make the initiative process more difficult to put forward. He mentioned the costs associated with the Cruise Ship Initiative costing around $35 thousand dollars. Mayor Botelho responded that the expenditures for Gavel to Gavel far exceeds that amount every year. Vice-Chair Stoltze questioned if CBJ had been involved in the 2004 ballot measure to change the rules regarding petitions. Mayor Botelho requested that Mr. Gruening from the Alaska Committee answer questions about those expenditures. The CBJ does make yearly appropriations to the Alaska Committee. Co-Chair Meyer asked if Alaska Airlines still offers the Constituency Fare. Mayor Botelho replied they do. Co- Chair Meyer asked if it was for only one trip per person. Mayor Botelho understood that was correct. Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that there had previously been a measure proposed that would require more voter participation & major expenditures on capitol location initiatives. Mayor Botelho advised that the voice of the people came through in the FRANK Initiative. That measure was again before the voters in 2002 and that 77% of the electorate turned the proposal down. Vice-Chair Stoltze emphasized that the people of the State opposed a measure to expand the FRANK Initiative for applying to any major expenditure. Mayor Botelho acknowledged that the City and Borough of Juneau thought it made no sense to require a vote of the people to decide whether the building should be relocated. 4:09:42 PM Representative Thomas asked if the building designed in Juneau several years ago, would met the requirements proposed in HB 54. Mayor Botelho replied it would not as it did not provide for the Supreme Court to be located in the same building. Representative Thomas inquired the costs associated with that that building. Mayor Botelho noted that CBJ had directed the design consultants to look at a building that would cost approximately $100 million dollars and that was costs from three years ago. At that time, the consultants anticipated that the cost of design & building in Alaska would supersede those costs. In response to comments made by Vice-Chair Stoltze, Representative Gara noted that if someone attempted to do something as proposed in the bill, decimating a community, he would expect that community to spend local monies to protect it from happening. He applauded the actions taken by Juneau in the past. He maintained, it would be a mistake to take a capitol that has been labeled inaccessible and move it to a place that is still inaccessible and requesting money to do that. There are many arguments for and against moving the legislature but the biggest argument against it is the dislocation that would happen to Juneau. Mayor Botelho added, it is important to look at this as not only Juneau but the entire Southeast region. Much of the activity that happens in Southeast Alaska has direct ties to Juneau. 4:12:49 PM Representative Gara asked the history of votes for and against the move of the capitol. Mayor Botelho relied on information provided by the Alaska Division of Elections: • 1960 votes for 18,865, opposed 23,972 • 1962 votes for 26,542, opposed 32,325 • 1974 - calling for the construction of a new Alaskan city, which passed for 46,659, opposed 35,683 • 1976 That vote presented the question of where the capitol should be moved, choosing Willow and received 56,219 votes • 1978 - General election, the FRANK initiative arose. The proposition was that there should be a termination of all bondable costs presented and approved by the voters. The requirement passed, for 69,414, oppose 55,253 • Simultaneously, there was the general obligation (GO) bond before the voters, which was rejected with supporting votes of 31,491 & opposing 88,783 • 1982 The issue to relocate & considering the costs, determining if the capitol should be moved to Willow. The vote for was 91,049, oppose 102,083 • 1994 - The initiative called to move the State Capitol from Juneau to Wasilla. The votes for were 96,398, opposing 116,277. Co-Chair Meyer asked that a copy of the above referenced material be submitted to Committee members. 4:17:02 PM WIN GRUENING, CHAIR, ALASKA COMMITTEE, spoke in opposition to HB 54. The Alaska Committee, which is a volunteer, non- profit group, has been dedicated to improving & enhancing Juneau as Alaska's capitol city. He recognized that while citizens of Alaska have repeatedly voted down efforts to move the capitol or legislature, the issue in the minds of some, still has not been settled. The Alaska Committee does take seriously the issue of capitol access. Those efforts are the reason for many of the improvements to access and facilities. He acknowledged that there are additional improvements that can be made to make Juneau a more attractive capitol. He noted that CBJ has funded many initiatives that have improved access to the State Capitol such as Gavel to Gavel, discounted air fares, pier & port improvements, as well as donations of real estate and buildings for use by the Legislature. Mr. Gruening maintained that technology has been and will continue to be the most efficient and least expensive way for constituents to have access. That is why Gavel to Gavel coverage has continued to be the flag-ship program for accessing the capitol. Approximately 60% of the $535 thousand dollars spent on the program is supported by the community of Juneau; no State funds are used. Mr. Gruening stated that technology, not relocation of buildings, is the key. The intent is to begin video-streaming all committee hearings, which will require fixed cameras in all the committee rooms. Unfortunately, HB 54 takes the opposite view and purports to relocate government & the capitol by relocating the capitol building & all the government functions associated with it. The sponsor's stated intent is to "address the concerns expressed by Alaskan's about access & the relative isolation of Juneau". It is difficult to see how Juneau could possibly win the bid. 4:22:45 PM Mr. Gruening noted that the operation and maintenance costs of funding a new building have not been identified. The decision on something of this magnitude, will be decided under the bill by a small committee of 14 people in the legislature with no opportunity for the public to review the true costs. The people's right is seeking to be repealed in HB 54. He stated the bill was a blank check for a full capitol move and that ultimately, the legislation would economically impoverish Juneau and Southeast Alaska. The issue is divisive & controversial. He urged that the bill be held in Committee and that the Committee instead consider less expensive alternatives that are available. 4:24:28 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze asked about the Alaska Committee's involvement on Ballot Issue 1 in 2004. Mr. Gruening responded that the amount of money spent on that issue was not large. He noted that the Committee took the position that getting signatures in only downtown Anchorage was not representing the views of the entire State when attempting to pass an initiative. A belief continues to exist that it would be more democratic to guarantee signatures were gathered from all over the State, not just one area. The Alaska Committee did back that legislation. Vice-Chair Stoltze expounded that the dollars submitted by the Alaska Committee was the "only real money" in the campaign and that it was not a small amount. He maintained that there was involvement by the Alaska Committee in that vote, now making it more difficult for citizens to "do initiatives". Mr. Gruening argued that the Alaska Committee made the process more democratic. 4:26:49 PM Representative Gara deliberated that the amount of money that the City & Borough of Juneau has to spend every time the capitol move issue comes up, is substantial. He agreed that the stronger the public access is in Juneau, the less often the issue will come forward. He urged consideration of changing the Gavel to Gavel program in offering interviews during the quiet times to make the process more educational. He did not think enough people watch the show and that it could be improved. Mr. Gruening pointed out that recently Gavel to Gavel went into full coverage with the advent of 360 North. It is now a full time station, year-round. The program coverage will be expanded and other things will be shown besides legislative coverage. He explained that coverage must be a-political. Representative Gara hoped to see it becoming more educational, addressing politics in the Legislature, helping to make the capitol process more accessible. 4:30:48 PM THOMAS BUZARD, SELF, DENALI ROSE PROPERITIES, JUNEAU, testified in opposition of HB 54. He stated that it does not make sense to bolster the economy of one community at the expense of another. Mr. Buzard encouraged that the focus of the Legislature be on the development for the State of Alaska. He pointed out that access to Juneau is better than ever. If the true concern is about access, he urged that the road be built. The health of Southeast Alaska continues to erode as the issues of moving the capitol arise and real estate values drop each time. The people that come on cruise ships only provide a small fraction of the economy. He maintained that the vote has come before the people and time after time, they vote not to spend State dollars for moving the capitol; over 77% of the electorate indicated that the FRANK initiative be left in place. 4:35:09 PM Representative Gara reiterated that he was sympathetic to the argument of moving the capitol. He identified that the access to Juneau is not good and that the road would not help that. No one will drive that road in the winter. The point to making the capitol accessible is Gavel to Gavel and vibrant telecommunications. He maintained that driving 24 hours will not make Juneau more accessible. Getting in and out of Juneau is difficult. There are more important issues that need to be addressed but access should not be minimized. Mr. Buzard understood the difficulty that legislators go through to maintain a life outside of Anchorage. Juneau is not blind to that. The argument does remain with a established economic base because of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the State would be spending. He concluded, many people already do not trust government and would be appalled eliminating the law of the FRANK initiative. 4:39:19 PM KATHERINE ELDEMAR, SELF, JUNEAU, testified that she does watch Gavel to Gavel every day. She suggested that government be here for the people, commenting that individual responsibilities and family obligations do not permit her to be at the Capitol everyday, so she depends on Gavel to Gavel. She agreed that Alaskans should have access to government. She recommended increasing the coverage. She maintained that moving the capitol from Juneau, would break up families and communities. She urged that the video-conferencing capabilities be increased in the rural communities. Ms. Eldemar pointed out that HB 54 does not identify the resources that will be utilized with passage. She stressed that the State's resources" are finite and should be spent on more pressing issues. In the rural communities, there are people just attempting to stay warm during the winter. She urged that all Alaskan children have adequate education instead of neglected buildings and insufficient staffing. She urged the use of Alaska's resources being spent on something other than HB 54. 4:44:58 PM Ms. Eldemar recommended setting aside the drive to move the capitol and sit quietly as a parent & member of all of Alaska. The challenge rests with the leadership to address needs in the rural communities throughout the State. HB 54 would take the State off the course of helping all of Alaska. 4:47:05 PM PAUL KENDALL, ANCHORAGE (Testified via teleconference), requested that his concern be addressed with the obvious problems for everyone. He emphasized that technology is not the answer & that access should not be divided. He pointed out that the 15% of the population in Juneau is a small microcosm of the entire State's population. He claimed that the State has taken care of Juneau for too many years, which he believes is a self indulgent community. He attempted to contain his discontent. He stated that Juneau does not have the dignity to satisfy the statewide needs for accessibility. Mr. Kendall continued testimony in support of moving the capitol out of Juneau to an Anchorage area, which he maintains has over 85% of the State's population. 4:54:46 PM PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED HB 54 was HELD in Committee. RECESSED: 4:57:11 PM March 11, 2008 RECONVENED: 11:53:19 AM March 12, 2008
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|