Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/02/2001 03:12 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
May 2, 2001
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Lisa Murkowski
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Relating to an Alaska National Guard Armory in Juneau.
- MOVED SJR 27 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 27
SHORT TITLE:NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY IN JUNEAU
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ELTON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/11/01 1069 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/11/01 1069 (S) STA
04/26/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/26/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
04/27/01 1301 (S) STA RPT 2DP 2NR
04/27/01 1301 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, PEARCE;
04/27/01 1301 (S) DP: PHILLIPS, DAVIS
04/27/01 1301 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/28/01 1329 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/28/01
04/28/01 1335 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/28/01 1335 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/28/01 1336 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 27
04/28/01 1336 (S) PASSED Y19 N1
04/28/01 1336 (S) DONLEY NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/28/01 (S) RLS AT 2:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/30/01 1381 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/30/01 1382 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/30/01 1382 (S) VERSION: SJR 27
05/01/01 1423 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/01/01 1423 (H) MLV
05/01/01 1423 (H) REFERRED TO MLV
05/01/01 1471 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HUDSON
05/02/01 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JESSE KIEHL, Staff
to Senator Kim Elton
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 27 on behalf of the sponsor
and answered questions.
MAC METCALFE
624 6th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 27 and answered
questions.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
400 Willoughby, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 27 and answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MIKE CHENAULT called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Chenault, Green, Kott, Cissna, and Hayes.
SJR 27 - NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY IN JUNEAU
CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the committee would hear SENATE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27, Relating to an Alaska National Guard
Armory in Juneau.
Number 0094
JESSE KIEHL, Staff to Senator Kim Elton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced SJR 27 on behalf of Senator Elton, prime
sponsor. He explained that the Juneau armory needs to move
because it sits on land owned by the Mental Health Land Trust,
which has plans to redevelop it for other purposes. The
resolution therefore expresses to the federal government the
legislature's support for a new armory. He noted that the
federal government will soon begin ranking armory projects, a
process that he believes should be completed by late June.
Number 0208
MAC METCALFE came forward to testify as a private citizen. A
National Guard member and sergeant since 1988, he told members
it is critical for every region in the state to have a strong
National Guard presence, simply for emergency services. Both
Bethel and Nome have battalion headquarters, as does Juneau,
which requires a full-time staff of about 15 people in order to
coordinate in times of emergency. Furthermore, there are
armories in nearly every community in Southeast Alaska and in
many villages; an emergency would require headquarters staff in
order to coordinate with emergency services in Anchorage.
Without an armory in Juneau, the headquarters could be moved
elsewhere, which would not be good for the whole region. He
noted that the leases will be up in two or three years for the
Subport and the armory in Juneau.
Number 0364
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), came
forward and urged the committee's positive consideration of SJR
27.
Number 0419
MS. CARROLL responded to a question from Representative Kott
regarding a $1.7 million [total] appropriation to the DMVA. She
said several years ago a [$1.6 million] legislative
appropriation was received to replace the armory; she indicated
the DMVA had looked at a site and dealt with the City and
Borough of Juneau to get a site near the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities. Money was spent on
looking at the design and doing site analysis from that
appropriation. Within the last year or so, however, [the DMVA]
has been working with the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS)
to look at a joint-use facility near Auke [Bay], which perhaps
the National Guard Bureau will view more favorably because it
looks at joint-use facilities more favorably than single-use
facilities now.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked where the location would be if the
federal appropriation were made in the next four to six months.
He also asked whether the project is far enough along that there
is a good plan and whether the existing infrastructure at UAS
would be used.
MS. CARROLL responded that she believes the effort now is toward
working with the UAS plot. There is a design that is "pretty
much complete" for a facility that can be situated there,
involving joint use of the armory-gymnasium. She emphasized the
belief that joint use would place the project higher on the
federal government's priority list. In response to a question
by Representative Green, she said the $1.6 million is a general
fund amount, some of which has been spent. If the federal
government provided money, the remainder of the $1.6 million
would be used for the facility and wouldn't revert to the state.
The problem is that [the DMVA] has received authority from the
legislature to receive the federal money, but has not yet
received any of that money.
Number 0691
MS. CARROLL, in further response to Representative Green,
explained that armories cost different amounts of money.
Sometimes there is a 75/25 percent match, depending on whether
it is a joint-use facility. The mix of funding depends on what
the square footage is used for. Sometimes it is 100 percent
general funds, and sometimes it is 100 percentage federal money.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether its being a joint-use
facility would help or hinder regarding the state's contribution
in the mix.
MS. CARROLL answered that there will be two entities coming back
to the legislature and requesting additional funds: the
university, asking for money for the facility, and the state,
asking for the additional amount needed to complete the
facility. She deferred to Mr. Kiehl for details.
Number 0799
MR. KIEHL reported that the university regents have put this
joint facility on their request list as one of their priorities.
The university anticipates spending approximately $5.3 million
on its share of the facility. According to the current design
and the federal formula for sharing different pieces for
different purposes, Mr. Kiehl said "we" are anticipating that
the federal government will pay approximately $5.3 million as
well. Under the current design, the state match for the non-
university armory portion will be approximately $3.1 million, of
which $1.7 million [total] has been appropriated.
MR. KIEHL emphasized that the joint-use facility appears today
to be the most cost-efficient way to meet the missions of both
the National Guard and UAS. Both organizations believe that it
will effectively meet their needs and will be significantly less
expensive than two facilities. However, should a joint-use
facility not meet the needs of both entities or make sense to
the legislature, it won't happen that way. Mr. Kiehl concluded
by pointing out that SJR 27 doesn't make an appropriation or
bind the state. The legislature will have control, when the
time comes, should the federal government approve funding for a
Juneau armory.
Number 0937
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether the estimate for the project is
$13.7 million to $14 million for the total project, including
federal funds.
MR. KIEHL said that is in the correct ballpark.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there would be an estimated 35-to-
40 percent match from the federal government. He suggested it
would be $8.4 million in state funds [for the university portion
plus the armory portion] versus $5.3 million in federal money.
MR. KIEHL said it would be approximately 30-some percent for the
state. He specified that the federal government, to his
understanding, won't share in the costs associated with strictly
the university's use, such as a hypothetical racquetball court,
for example. He apologized for not having the design with him.
Number 1056
MR. KIEHL, in response to a question from Representative Cissna,
explained that most parts of the building would be used jointly,
to his understanding. A large, open space is needed for both a
university recreation facility (for the gymnasium) and an armory
(for mustering and training). In addition, both need locker
rooms and showers. However, the university doesn't need offices
for the guard headquarters company, for example, and therefore
wouldn't share in the costs or use of those.
MR. KIEHL noted that the guard and the university would have to
work out whether guard members would have access to strictly
recreational facilities, as they work out their joint-use
arrangement. The biggest concern would be that in the event of
some national disaster or a civil or military emergency in
Southeast Alaska, the university would lose its recreational
facility for a while; however, the university is fully aware of
that and agrees it is a good tradeoff.
MR. KIEHL reiterated that if, early on, this joint facility
doesn't meet the needs of both entities and make sense to the
legislature, there will be separate facilities planned instead.
This resolution simply expresses the legislature's support for a
new armory in Juneau, which is a definite need.
Number 1246
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that there might be benefits
from having guard members on campus; for example, guard members
may want to take classes and students may want to become members
of the guard.
Number 1354
MR. METCALFE, in response to a question by Representative Kott,
reported that he has talked to the people who designed the
armory that is being presented in Washington, D.C. The
university has asked that the gymnasium area of the new armory
be expanded; the university would pay for that expansion,
including having it enlarged to be a college-sized court, adding
bleachers, and adding an indoor track around the gym. Right
now, the university has no gymnasium. He pointed out that the
current armory is a gymnasium surrounded by lockers, with a
vault that serves as an armory and a few offices. The armory by
the university would be similar, with expanded office space [for
the guard] and an expanded court [for the university].
Number 1480
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether this is what the university
will be coming to the legislature to request funding for.
MR. KIEHL responded that as he understands it, a portion of the
earlier appropriation made by the legislature for planning and
design of a guard armory has been expended. A design was done
for an armory strictly for the guard. He said the guard has
spent a little more of that money, and the university has spent
some money from its existing funds to adapt that design. Mr.
Kiehl said he had neither design with him.
Number 1542
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Mr. Metcalfe whether there would be
any downside to having the armory portion be larger, or any
downside for the university in terms of mobilization by the
guard in an emergency.
MR. METCALFE said no. He added that Representative Cissna's
earlier point regarding the association between the guard and
the students was a good one. Many students don't know the
economic benefits of being a guard member. For example, a
person who joins the guard receives $9,000 worth of GI
[Government Issue] benefits; a person who already has existing
student loans receives $10,000 towards paying off those loans;
and a "GI bill kicker" can provide another $4,000 or $5,000.
That is all federal money. Regarding mobilization, he said he
sees no disadvantage, and having a bigger hall would be an
advantage in any kind of emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether the facility will be
approximately the same distance to the airport [as from the
current armory downtown].
MR. KIEHL explained that the new armory site isn't right on the
main campus. The plan is to put it closer to Auke Bay, right
past Horton's on the hill; there would be immediate access from
the main highway. He said he doesn't see that as a problem.
Number 1695
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how the funding mix for the
approximately $14 million will be figured.
MR. METCALFE said he knows that the university and the guard
have worked together closely on the plan; however, he doesn't
know that they have worked out the exact time that the
university would have access to the gym. He noted that on
training weekends for the guard, for example, the university
wouldn't have access.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about supporting the
resolution and then having to provide state funds, which might
dampen legislators' enthusiasm.
MR. METCALFE stated his understanding that prior to the
university's involvement, there would have been a 75/25
federal/state split. He recalled testimony that the university
has offered to put $5-plus million into the project to expand
the gymnasium.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that university funds still
come from the state.
Number 1859
MR. KIEHL emphasized that two designs have been done [one for an
armory and one for a joint-use facility], and the legislature
will have the opportunity to evaluate, in depth, the benefits
and costs to the state of both. He apologized that nobody from
the university was present that day, but offered to discuss
Representative Green's concerns with the university and with
other representatives of the guard.
MR. KIEHL informed members that in the past, the Juneau armory
project hadn't ranked high enough on the National Guard Bureau's
list to be funded either through a regular appropriation or
through a special appropriation by U.S. Senator Stevens. Due to
recent changes in the National Guard Bureau's ranking process
and criteria, however, it is believed that the Juneau armory
project will rise to that point. Without that, no new federal
share for the Juneau armory would be possible. Mr. Kiehl voiced
confidence that SJR 27 will help in the bureau's ranking
process.
Number 2053
MR. METCALFE emphasized that the guard must be out of the
current armory in about three years. He noted that there are
two headquarters companies in Juneau: the battalion
headquarters company and the Alpha Company headquarters. He
asked where those people would go, and what would happen then.
Number 2084
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the City and Borough of
Juneau would be willing to put at least as much money [as the
value of the building being vacated] into the new armory, should
it be located on university property.
MR. METCALFE replied that the city already has put up property,
a site at 7 mile. Typically, for an armory project, a city will
offer property and the state will offer to match the federal
funding. However, the university owns the property at Auke Bay
[being considered for a joint-use facility], which is favored by
the National Guard, to his understanding, and by himself. As to
Representative Green's specific question, Mr. Metcalfe said he
didn't know.
Number 2173
CHAIR CHENAULT closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he isn't troubled with SJR 27. The
need is there. He reported that he has been to the Juneau
armory, which is in bad shape, and there is a definite time for
the guard to be out of that building, since the Mental Health
Land Trust will evict the guard in three years. He suggested
there is a need for a fairly aggressive schedule in order to
complete a facility in the existing timeframe.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move SJR 27 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, SJR 27 was moved out of
the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|