03/17/2001 10:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
March 17, 2001
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James (via teleconference)
Representative Hugh Fate (via teleconference)
Representative Peggy Wilson (via teleconference)
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Stevens
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Ken Lancaster (via teleconference)
Representative Beth Kerttula (via teleconference)
Senator Randy Phillips
Senator John Cowdery
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
"An Act relating to the location of legislative sessions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE:MOVE LEGISLATURE TO ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG, GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0023 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0023 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0023 (H) STA, FIN
01/08/01 0023 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/13/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/13/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/01 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM Anch LIO Conf
Rm
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as one of the sponsors of HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as one of the sponsors of HB 1.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he would do everything he
could to help forward HB 1 through the Senate.
BOB MONSON
PO Box 222524
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 1.
UWE KALENKA
PO Box 92824
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 1 and discussed
the citizen initiative with which he is involved.
DANIEL BOONE
PO Box 53
Chitina, Alaska 99566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the move.
ED KNOEBEL
PO Box 84
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 1.
JOSEPH HENRI
9921 Near Point Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 1.
AUSTIN MAHALKEY
PO Box 455
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he preferred the capital
stay in Juneau.
JERMEY BESHAW
PO Box 586
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Dared the legislature to move the
legislative offices.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 101
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 1.
BILL DUDLEY
2123 Esquire Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 1.
GEORGE GAGUZIS
7100 Old Harbor
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to vote for HB 1.
SCOTT ROBART
627 W. 20th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to move the legislature
to the road system.
ANDRE McLEOD
3721 Young Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to do what it can to
bring the legislature to Anchorage.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, James (via teleconference), Fate (via teleconference),
Wilson (via teleconference), and Hayes (via teleconference) were
present at the call to order. Representative Crawford arrived
as the meeting was in progress. Representatives Lancaster (via
teleconference) and Kerttula (via teleconference) and Senators
Phillips and Cowdery were also in attendance.
HB 1-MOVE LEGISLATURE TO ANCHORAGE
[Note: The counter numbers reflect the amount of time that has
elapsed since the beginning of the meeting.]
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the only order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to the
location of legislative sessions; and providing for an effective
date."
2.5
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as one of the sponsors of HB 1. He began by pointing
out that the voters have taken up the issue of capital
relocation a number of times. Representative Rokeberg said, "My
interest in introducing this bill was to endeavor to ensure
greater access by the people of the State of Alaska to their
elected representatives." Alaska is the only state that
requires its citizens to pass through a foreign country in order
to reach the capital by road or ferry. Additionally, flying
into Juneau and staying overnight there is a substantial burden.
Representative Rokeberg calculated that airfare, lodging, and
other expenses in Juneau would amount to about $700.
Furthermore, Representative Rokeberg said that the existing
capitol building in Juneau is "obsolete and antiquated and,
quite frankly, has a number of life-safety issues that revolve
around it." Over the years Legislative Council has done well
working with the current structure, particularly in terms of
accessibility. However, Representative Rokeberg believes that
the building is not designed to serve the public well and he
didn't believe that some of the life-safety issues could be
corrected in the existing structure. For example, there are
dead end corridors and traffic patterns that don't meet any fire
and building code that he is aware of, even with the exceptions
for historic buildings. Therefore, he believes that the state
should review the issue of having a new capitol building that
meets the needs of the public. Also, other than the small
coffee stand, there is no where for a visitor to the capitol
building to obtain food or refreshments. Furthermore, the
committee rooms are inadequate. For example, committee room 17
in the capitol building has a fire exit staircase inside the
room, which is illegal under any fire code. He reviewed other
problems with room 17.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he has also introduced HB 57,
which would provide any political subdivision of people 30,000
or greater with the ability to build a new legislative hall and
lease it to the legislature for $1 a year and the legislature
would pay for all the operating costs, repair, and maintenance.
He pointed out that it does allow Juneau to be part of the
competition. Representative Rokeberg informed the committee,
"It's my desire to develop a Anchorage ... committee to ...
build a capitol building hopefully this year and generate
further interest in it." He acknowledged that the folks in
Juneau are aware of this situation and there is a group, the
Alaska Committee, that is working towards keeping the capital
and the legislature in Juneau. The Alaska Committee has
retained architectural consultants to add an addition to the
rear of the capitol building, which would also include
additional parking. He mentioned the difficulty for staff and
capital visitors to find parking in downtown Juneau.
9.6
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
one of the sponsors of HB 1. Representative Green said that he
views this issue from both an economic and a philosophical
standpoint. He informed the committee that 57 of the 60
legislators have to come from elsewhere. Were the legislature
to convene in Anchorage, 45 percent [of the legislators] live in
Anchorage and up to 60 percent live within a one hour commute.
Obviously, there is a significant difference in cost [when
reviewing having the capital in Anchorage versus Juneau].
Representative Green mentioned that he had spoken with several
Bush legislators who preferred to have the capitol in Anchorage
because they can get from their home to Anchorage, while getting
to and from Juneau is questionable. Representative Green
returned to the average cost for [a constituent] to come to
Juneau, which is about $700. He informed the committee that
just this week he attempted to change his departure time by four
hours and that was going to cost $375 additional dollars, which
is absurd. That occurred because Juneau has only one airline
company, which results in no competition and no fair prices.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN turned to the philosophical side of this
issue. That is, he believes the pool of potential legislators
would be significantly increased [by moving the capitol]. Too
many of the people that would make good legislators are not
willing to make the sacrifice to their home life. He pointed to
Senator Parnell as one example of a legislator who left because
he didn't want to continue the disruption to his family. He
agreed with Chair Coghill that this disruption to the family is
also felt by the legislative staff. Although Representative
Green commended the staff that lives in Juneau, he maintained
that the difficulty and expense of having the capital in Juneau
excludes potential legislative staff from other parts of the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that Alaska is a resource state
and thus is very much in the public's eye in Washington, D.C.
However, Alaska's small population of a little over 600,000
people provides only a small voice in Washington, D.C.
Therefore, the result is the need to make trips to Washington,
D.C., in order to make a point known. Such a trip is
problematic, especially in the first two months [of session]
when the fog can settle in Juneau such that flights cannot come
in and out. Although there may times in which other airports
might also have to be closed or have limited flight service, the
cancellation of flights out of Anchorage is a fraction of what
it is in Juneau.
16.4
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN addressed the charge that moving the
legislative session out of Juneau would destroy the economics of
the city. Representative Green questioned that argument. He
informed the committee that in his first year in Juneau [as a
legislator], the legislative session was extended. That
extension extended into the tourist season and some
[legislators] were thrown out of their rentals because the
tourists paid more money. Representative Green indicated that
Juneau hasn't looked at other sources of income, such as local
mineral deposits in the Juneau area. He clarified that he is
suggesting that there are other avenues other than the
legislature that could cover the time before the arrival of the
tourists.
18.0
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, informed the
committee that he has some community meetings scheduled today in
Chugiak and Muldoon. At those meetings, he said he would
inquire as to how many of those present want to move the
legislature. Senator Phillips assured the committee that at
least three out of four will support moving the legislature.
Senator Phillips then turned to the issue of access and remarked
that the time of legislators is, in general, dominated by
lobbyists or bureaucrats, which he didn't believe to be
appropriate. Furthermore, Senator Phillips didn't believe it to
be fair that children outside the Juneau area can't visit the
legislature. He emphasized the importance of exposing children
to the legislature in order to encourage children to enter into
public [service]. In conclusion, Senator Phillips said that
when HB 1 passes the House he would do everything he could to
forward it through the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed everyone that the Close Up
Program provides transportation mainly for rural children to
visit the legislature. However, he highlighted the fact that
there are never any children from the Anchorage area visiting
the legislature, except on a rare occasion. He inquired as to
Senator Phillips' opinion of that.
SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that the Close Up Program is a good
program as long as everyone is on a level playing field. In his
25 years, Senator Phillips said that only five children from his
district have been to Juneau to see the legislature. He
reiterated the importance of access and the need to eliminate
the dominance of bureaucrats and lobbyists on the political
process.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN informed the committee that this is his
fifth time sponsoring [capital] move legislation. He also
informed the committee that Senator Phillips has sponsored such
legislation in the past as well. Therefore, this is not a
single member or body issue.
SENATOR PHILLIPS recalled that the legislation of five years ago
failed on a 7:12 vote. He said, "I've been told that is the
furtherest its come, in the state's history." He expressed the
hope that this issue would proceed even further.
25.7
BOB MONSON informed the committee that he has been in Alaska
about 50 years and has only be in Juneau twice, both of which
when he was a state employee. He agreed with the aforementioned
average cost to go to Juneau of $700. Mr. Monson noted his
support of HB 1. He related his belief that moving the
legislature would cause the dynamics of it to change. He
pointed out that there is much infrastructure within the state
to build, but [the state] can't hardly build anything.
Therefore, if the legislature was moved, perhaps some other
avenues would open up. Although Juneau has been very effective
in squelching capital move efforts, there isn't anyone present
in Juneau to testify.
CHAIR COGHILL interjected that he has already had one hearing on
HB 1 during which there were witnesses from Juneau. Therefore,
he believes that his announcement that he wanted to provide
Anchorage with the opportunity [to testify] on this issue
probably led them [not to testify].
MR. MONSON concluded by expressing his hope that the committee
would take action on HB 1 so that it could be forwarded to the
House floor for a vote.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA informed everyone that constituents
and people in Juneau are listening.
29.4
UWE KALENKA noted that he was in Juneau recently and took the
time to visit the capitol building. Mr. Kalenka said that the
capitol building and office are a disgrace to the State of
Alaska. He suggested either tearing down the capitol building
or making it a museum. He acknowledged that there is a force to
move the governor from the capitol building. However, Mr.
Kalenka believes that the entire legislature should be moved
from Juneau to Alaska's population center, namely in
Southcentral Alaska. At this point in time, Juneau does not
represent Alaska very well and thus, "it does not send the
proper message to the rest of the nation to have the legislature
or, for that matter, the capital in Juneau." Mr. Kalenka
informed the committee that signatures are being collected [for
an initiative to move the capital] and the paperwork will be
forwarded to the lieutenant governor next week for
certification. He reiterated the need to move the capital to
Southcentral Alaska, where the climate is better and land to
build on is cheaper. There is no room to expand in Juneau,
which is probably why the average cost of a dwelling in Juneau
is $220,000. Mr. Kalenka remarked, in response to the average
cost of a dwelling in Juneau, "That's obscene. The average
income in Alaska is only $33,000."
MR. KALENKA said that over the last 30 years, he has witnessed
several movements to move the legislature, the capital, or both
out of [Juneau]. In the past, it was thwarted by some
"ingenious politician." Therefore, this time the movement is a
citizen initiative. In conclusion, Mr. Kalenka noted his
support of the efforts of Representatives Green and Rokeberg.
31.4
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed his desire to review the
initiative that Mr. Kalenka spoke of before he submits it to the
lieutenant governor. Representative Rokeberg said,
"Fundamentally, I agree with the concept. Right now, I don't
think politically - because of the influence of Southeast and so
forth - that any bill will have a very good chance of becoming
law." Therefore, "this is ... a paradigm case for use of
initiatives," he said. Although Representative Rokeberg
commended Mr. Kalenka, he expressed the following concerns. He
asked if Mr. Kalenka's initiative dealt only with the
legislature and not the capital.
MR. KALENKA affirmed that, at this point, the initiative only
deals with moving the legislature. In further response to
Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Kalenka said that the initiative is
similar to what is in HB 1 with one exception. That exception
is that the initiative would propose moving the legislature to
the Mat-Su Borough. However, "We are wide open on that one," he
said. Mr. Kalenka explained that the Mat-Su Borough was chosen
because of its location and cheap building land, while Anchorage
is running out of buildable land. Mr. Kalenka said, "Quite
frankly, we'd support either ... Anchorage or Mat-Su or
wherever, as long as it's Southcentral where the population is."
Mr. Kalenka, in response to Representative Rokeberg, said that
he had not reviewed HB 57.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that Mr. Kalenka review HB 57
because it has specs on building that could be expanded. That
legislation, HB 57, involves Legislative Counsel creating the
mechanism for any action, if the initiative is successful.
Therefore, he reiterated the need for Mr. Kalenka to provide the
initiative to legislators for review before submitting it for
certification. For example, HB 57 deals with where to build
[the capitol building] on a competitive basis and lease it back
for $1 on nominal consideration. Therefore, if there are state
lands available, those lands could be utilized at no cost to the
developer in the political subdivision. For example, when the
Atwood Building was purchased, $5 million worth of downtown land
was acquired as part of the deal. Between the Atwood Building
and the Phillips 66 tower, the state owns a full block that
would seem to be an excellent location for the development of a
new legislative hall.
34.2
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD pointed out that if the initiative
specifies the Mat-Su Borough as the location, then it is not
open to be changed.
MR. [MONSON] agreed, but noted that [he and Mr. Kalenka] support
[HB 1].
MR. KALENKA clarified that should HB 1 not pass through the
legislature, the initiative will move forward.
35.3
DANIEL BOONE testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that he is a member of the Chitina Fire Department.
Mr. Boone related his understanding that prior to statehood,
Juneau was the main hub when traveling to Alaska. However,
Juneau is no longer the hub of the main traffic flow. The
construction of the road during World War II gave access to the
Interior of Alaska. Mr. Boone felt that moving the legislative
offices and even the capital to Anchorage [or] the Mat-Su
Borough would provide [citizens] of the state with greater
access and more input. Mr. Boone said that he supports the move
because many of the rural communities in Alaska have to go to
Anchorage and then proceed to Juneau [if they want to
participate in the state government], which is costly. He
informed the committee that he can take a one week vacation to
Hawaii cheaper than going to Juneau for one day.
MR. BOONE, in response to Chair Coghill, said that via the road
it takes him approximately 5 hours to get to Anchorage. He
clarified that if he did travel to Juneau, it would amount to
three days of travel. In response to Representative Rokeberg,
Mr. Boone provided the following opinion regarding whether he
preferred moving [the legislature] to Anchorage or the Mat-Su
Borough. He believes that the Mat-Su Borough location would be
in the best interest of Alaskans because Anchorage is
overcrowded and has traffic problems.
39.0
ED KNOEBEL, retired businessman, testified via teleconference.
[There is about one minute of blank tape at the end of Tape 01-
23, Side A.]
TAPE 01-23, SIDE B
MR. KNOEBEL acknowledged that Anchorage has a building that
could be used to house legislative sessions. However, he
preferred that the [legislature] be located in the Mat-Su or
Talkeetna area, which was originally passed and [approved]. In
regard to the argument that moving [the legislature] would cost
too much, Mr. Knoebel related his understanding that moving the
[legislature] to Talkeetna wouldn't have cost anything because
state land could have been used. Furthermore, the cost would
only be for leasing the buildings, which is the current
situation. Mr. Knoebel said, "I'm all for it." In response to
Chair Coghill, Mr. Knoebel said that moving the legislature to
Anchorage would be a start.
2.4
JOSEPH HENRI, testifying via teleconference, announced that he
is opposed to HB 1. He informed the committee that he is a
lawyer and has represented the Alaska State Legislature as a
contract lawyer. Furthermore, he served on the Commission on
Privatization. Mr. Henri suggested that the legislature spend
some time on [the recommendations] regarding privatization
rather than on the fantasies of the money that would be saved by
moving the capital. Mr. Henri also informed the committee that
he was the Commissioner of the Department of Administration
under Governor Egan, when the Commissioner of Administration ran
the state budget. Therefore, Mr. Henri is familiar with the
cost of doing business and how government works.
MR. HENRI expressed his astonishment in hearing Senator Phillips
say that he didn't like to hear from bureaucrats all the time.
Mr. Henri emphasized, "No bureaucrat, Mr. Chairman, ever goes to
the legislative hall unless invited by some legislator. There's
a very strict rule about that." Therefore, that is the largest
defect in moving only the legislature and leaving the state's
general bureaucracy in Juneau. In Mr. Henri's opinion, the
legislature can't function without bureaucratic input.
MR. HENRI turned to Mr. Kalenka's work [on the initiative] to
place the legislature in the Mat-Su Borough. Mr. Henri
predicted that moving only the legislature to the Mat-Su Borough
would result in an expense for the legislature that is 100 times
more than it is currently. Therefore, he felt that such was
unworkable and probably illegal. Furthermore, the legislative
and executive branches have to work together or nothing is
accomplished. Mr. Henri questioned the legality of separating
the legislative and executive branches.
6.7
MR. HENRI continued by addressing the deep divisiveness that
such action would bring to Alaska. He recalled that there is
already quite a bit of divisiveness such as associated with the
subsistence issue as well as other rural-urban conflicts.
[Moving the legislature] will alienate an entire segment of the
state, the Southeast panhandle. This is extremely bad policy.
MR. HENRI, in regard to Representative Rokeberg's comments about
how old the capitol is, said that he worked in the capitol of
the United States, which is an old building that perhaps doesn't
adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, Mr.
Henri didn't believe that argument to be a legitimate one.
"There's an unstated conclusion to all this, Mr. Chairman, that
if the legislature were moved to where the majority of the
people are, everything would be better," he said. However, he
didn't believe that would be the case. Mr. Henri concluded by
saying, "We have a representative form of government and the
representatives have to gather some place, Juneau is as good as
any other place."
8.8
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that currently there are about six
commissioners that live in Anchorage rather than Juneau.
Furthermore, there are more Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) employees in Anchorage than are in Juneau as is probably
the case with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
as well. Therefore, he said that the bureaucrats who want to
testify would be able to do so [in Anchorage] just as well. He
agreed that Alaska and the U.S. are a republic. However, he
explained that the concept is to [allow for more] public
testimony at the committee hearings, which could be achieved
because there is more public [in Anchorage] than in Juneau.
MR. HENRI said that he didn't believe that there are six
department heads headquartered in Anchorage. As far as he knew,
the capital is still in Juneau. In response to Representative
Green's comment that [the legislation] is not moving the
capital, Mr. Henri said, "My point is that you are moving the
capital when you move the legislature and I think it's
inevitable, if not legally required, that the executive and the
...[legislative branches] be together."
MR. HENRI noted that he was present and opposed the first
capital move issue in 1960. At that time, he felt that it was a
"silly issue" and he thinks it remains such. He said, "I think
it's a poor excuse, a sort of ... a diversionary tactic away
from the real problems that we face here as a state. The
biggest one being: What are we going to do about our cash flow,
our budgetary..."
CHAIR COGHILL interjected that the fact that it has been a
public debate illustrates that many people are interested in
this issue. Furthermore, "it is tough to change policy and/or
change location," and thus he expressed the need to focus on [HB
1]. Therefore, he asked Mr. Henri to wrap up his testimony.
MR. HENRI reiterated his belief that [moving the legislature] is
a poor idea. He said, "In spite of the fact that you say
nothing else is pertinent but this issue, I think you do have
more important issues like the economic well-being of Alaska
that you ought to be attending to."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Henri for his long and
distinguished public service to the state. However, he took
exception to some of Mr. Henri's analysis of this. Although
Representative Rokeberg agreed with Mr. Henri's assessment of
the state's priorities, "it's not to denigrate other issues."
Currently, the capitol building's [dysfunction] is critical. In
regard to the state of the capitol building in Washington, D.C.,
Representative Rokeberg pointed out that it was built in the
grand Neo-Roman style that has massive chambers. However,
Alaska's capitol building wasn't designed as a capitol building
and "that's the problem." Representative Rokeberg also took
exception to Mr. Henri's legal argument regarding the separation
of government.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in regard to the issue of priorities,
said that when he went door-to-door he heard more people request
a certain road being paved rather than have the capital moved.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that Clark Gruening,
The Alaska Committee, and Sally Smith, Mayor of Juneau, were
both present.
15.6
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Former Representative, House of
Representatives, Alaska State Legislature, began by saying that
discussion of [capital move] initiatives will kill this bill.
He emphasized that the legislature could move into the Atwood
Building now for the legislative sessions, if the legislature so
desired. Having legislative sessions in the Atwood Building
would probably cost less than moving the session back and forth
each year. There is plenty of room in the Atwood Building. In
regard to the location of the bureaucrats, Representative Martin
pointed out that two-thirds of the bureaucrats live in
Anchorage. Representative Martin recalled that at one time
there was [discussion] about having deputy commissioners move to
Anchorage and Fairbanks so that they could represent the
bureaucracy and the governor while affording the public access
to them. However, all the deputy commissioners were moved to
Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stressed that representative government
cannot occur with a distant and isolated community such as
Juneau, Barrow, or Bethel. He said, "It's the access to
government that the people want." Representative Martin related
his belief that all the modern tools used to provide access to
the capital have totally failed. Juneau is too secluded and
dominated by special interest groups and lobbyists.
Representative Martin charged that the current location of the
capital is the worst community in this state, in terms of
accessibility by the average citizen, specifically in regard to
the ability to walk or drive to legislative hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN informed the committee that in the last
two weeks he has attempted to contact his legislators in regard
to various issues. In one case, the staff of his legislator
informed him that the legislator was on the way to the airport
to come to Anchorage, where he was not able to contact the
legislator either. He said, "This session has proven that
you've been absent probably at least 30 or 40 days already from
the legislature." Therefore, if the location of the legislature
was moved, the length of the session could easily be reduced by
30 or 40 days. He estimated that it amounts to over $1.4
million just for the legislature to travel back and forth and
for the per diem. If one believes in democracy and hearing the
voice of the people, then the current location is not
appropriate. Representative Martin expressed his exasperation
with the scheduling of meetings and the agendas changing or
meetings being canceled entirely, which [is a burden] to those
who do travel to take part in the legislative process. He
charged that nothing has improved in the last 25 years.
Therefore, "You must move the legislature," he said.
21.3
AUSTIN MAHALKEY testified via teleconference. Mr. Mahalkey
related his belief that this is a backdoor way to move the
capital to Anchorage and thus he preferred the [legislative
sessions] staying in Juneau. He recalled that the citizens of
Alaska voted to move the capital a couple of times, but the
legislature [projected] the financing of the move to be ten
times higher than what it would actually cost so that it would
be voted down. Therefore, the [public's] vote was nullified.
Mr. Mahalkey said, "I think this is just a power grab to move
the capital to Anchorage behind our backs and I'd rather see it
stay in Juneau." Furthermore, everyone that is involved in this
is from Anchorage or Eagle River. He indicated that [moving the
legislative sessions] would result in [litigation].
22.6
JERMEY BESHAW testified via teleconference. Mr. Beshaw played
the following recording:
As my grandfather would say, you do your best business
out on Main Street, not way out in "BFG." It's been
said that we Alaskans feel left out of the ring and
cut off from our own government, Well folks, I
challenge you. I throw down the gauntlet before you
and dare you to move the legislative offices and to
prove that, once and for all, we the people of Alaska
are not [incompetent] when it comes to our own
government. After all, it is a legislative office not
a MASH unit. And I hope that this action will prove
one small step towards the move of our capital.
24.2
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY first addressed an earlier comment that [HB
1] is a power grab for Anchorage. To that Senator Cowdery said,
"The power is in Anchorage, the people are in Anchorage." He
noted his agreement with Former Representative Martin in that
the communications aren't as good as they should be. In regard
to past efforts to move the capital, the price presented to the
public [was higher than it actually would be] and thus scared
the public such that [it didn't pass].
SENATOR COWDERY remarked that there are several ways to
[accomplish this]. He recalled a situation in Eastern Canada
where a new city hall was needed. Although the [community] was
taxed out and couldn't build a city hall, the [community] did
have land available. Therefore, the mayor put out a Request For
Proposals (RFP) that specified the size and details of the city
hall that the community wanted. This RFP was put out worldwide
and a Belgium organization responded. The mayor wanted a turn-
key operation that had no cost for the city. In exchange for
the [Belgium organization building the city hall], they would
receive a specified amount of land around the city hall in order
to obtain revenue from future development. There was worldwide
interest and the Belgium organization built the city hall.
There are lots of areas in Alaska that have land. Therefore,
the aforementioned scenario could be one way to pay for this.
SENATOR COWDERY turned to the issue of travel. The expense of
travel alone almost supports [moving the legislature]. He
pointed out the possibility of using GARVEE (Grant Anticipation
Revenue Vehicles) bonds, which utilize anticipated revenue so
that the money can be received up-front. If a facility is built
in Anchorage, then he felt it fair to pay rent or "something
else." He expressed his belief that the time has come [to move
the legislature]. He stressed that handicap people cannot even
get to the [House or Senate chambers]. Furthermore, the capitol
building wouldn't pass any safety inspection. Many improvements
to the capitol building are necessary. The capitol building is
a historic location that could remain of interest to tourists
[even if the capital is not in Juneau]. Furthermore, the
governor could remain in Juneau.
SENATOR COWDERY mentioned that when he first took office that he
brought his grandchildren to Juneau for a week in order to see
how government works. His grandchildren have never forgot that
visit. He indicated the importance of involving children in
government.
30.2
BILL DUDLEY informed the committee that he has been an Anchorage
resident for many years, since 1954, and has voted a few times
to move the state capital. Mr. Dudley felt that [HB 1] makes
practical sense because it would allow the public to access the
legislature for a more reasonable cost. Most importantly,
Anchorage is the largest city in Alaska. Moving the legislators
with their staff makes sense in trying to improve the democratic
process. Furthermore, the public would become more interested
in being involved if they could see first hand how the
legislature functions or dysfunctions. Mr. Dudley said that
having the legislature located in the largest city in Alaska
could only improve the way that public laws are made because
more public input could be received. Mr. Dudley concluded his
testimony by saying, "Let's try it." He agreed with earlier
comments that the cost of a capital move scares the public. Mr.
Dudley announced his support of HB 1.
33.4
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the number of times Mr.
Dudley had been before the legislature in Juneau to testify.
MR. DUDLEY replied, "None." However, he noted that he is very
active in the American Legion, which has a representative in
Juneau every year. Mr. Dudley recalled his employment with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which required him to fly
to Juneau occasionally. He said that invariably the weather in
Juneau was bad and thus he despised flying to Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that he and his wife had to
stay in Sitka on his way to Juneau because his flight couldn't
get into Juneau. He asked if Mr. Dudley had not been to Juneau
because of the cost involved in such a visit.
MR. DUDLEY answered that the cost wasn't really a large factor
in his decision to not come to Juneau. However, he did feel
that it would be easier if the public could drive or take a
[cheap] plane ride to the capital. Still, Mr. Dudley said he
believes that the cost does deter some people.
35.0
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if Mr. Dudley had testified at
committee hearings via teleconference.
MR. DUDLEY replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that visitors from other states
are amazed at how well the legislature can contact [the public]
through the Legislative Information Offices (LIO), the public
opinion messages (POMs), and telephone and e-mail.
MR. DUDLEY noted that he has used the POMs numerous times. He
commended the legislature on what it has down with the
communication system.
36.4
GEORGE GAGUZIS informed the committee that the military brought
him to Alaska in 1971 and he has stayed since. He said,
"Accessibility to government is a prime issue." Mr. Gaguzis
also informed the committee that he has been in state employment
since the 1980s. In one of his positions, he made several
attempts to go to Juneau "on the state's nickel." However, he
never made it to Juneau to testify. He commented on what a
"nail-biter" it is to fly into Juneau. In regard to a building
[for the legislature], Mr. Gaguzis said that any building takes
away from the tax base. Therefore, his preference would be for
a community to take private funds to build a facility and the
state would be involved with leasing. Contrary to what Mr.
Henri said, Mr. Gaguzis felt that there would be a fiscal
savings, especially with regard to travel and per diem costs.
Therefore, Mr. Gaguzis urged the committee to make the fiscally
responsible decision and vote for HB 1.
[The tape was changed about a minute early and thus there is
about one minute of blank space.]
TAPE 01-24, SIDE A
1.2
SCOTT ROBART informed the committee that he has lived in the
[Aleutian] Chain where airfare to Juneau was $1,040 and Bethel
where airfare to Juneau was about $650. Mr. Robart agreed with
Representative Martin's testimony that efforts to pass HB 1 will
be for naught if the legislation is labeled "move the capital or
build a new capitol." Mr. Robart said, "I strongly suggest that
we try to get the legislative sessions where the specter of its
Anchorage association does not become a difficulty for those
people in locations such as Fairbanks or in Juneau." Although
most of the power may be in Anchorage, the legislative process
should be located where a simple majority of the people can
access their elected representatives. He pointed out that folks
living within driving or easy ferry range of the capital amount
to less than 10 percent of the state's population. However,
that 10 percent is accorded 100 percent access to their elected
state officials. Mr. Robart said, "Those few and lobbyists are
the only folks who have virtually unfettered access to the
democratic process and God knows the lobbyists don't need to
have things made any easier for them."
MR. ROBART pointed out that the majority of Alaska's population
lives on the road system and the car is still the most common
means of transportation in the state. However, some people
still have to spend hundreds of dollars to fly to have a face-
to-face meeting with their representatives during session.
Furthermore, these people have to fly through a foreign country
and will be lucky if they land - "and never mind safely" - and
depart to their destination. When overnight accommodations,
meals, missed work, and miscellaneous expenses are calculated,
the total cost often exceeds $1,000. Mr. Robart emphasized that
such a cost to access one's representative is unethical, unfair,
undemocratic, unAlaskan, and beyond the financial reach of most.
Moreover, there is the cost to the taxpayers to fund this
absurdity. [This doesn't begin to include] the cost of flying
legislators between Juneau and their districts, moving them to
and from Juneau, and their accommodations in Juneau. Mr. Robart
asserted, "Good Lord, this is so stupid as to be almost
laughable." He commented on the difficulties that the
teleconference had this morning.
MR. ROBART concluded:
All the state's extra expenses aside for just a
moment. The fact is that most of the state's
residents are disenfranchised from their elected
representatives due to the tremendous cost and
difficulty of getting to the capital to face those who
are supposed to represent you. At the same time, a
very small minority and lobbyists have accessing to
same. Democratic? I don't think so. A road out of
Juneau, discounted airfares from Alaska Airlines, ...
teleconferencing, videoconferencing. It's nonsense.
The fact is that those in Juneau will and have done
everything they can to perpetuate their virtual
ownership of the democratic process. The cost of all
this is borne exclusively by the residents of the rest
of the state. That is simply the dictionary
definition of selfishness. Move the ... legislature
to the road system. I don't think any of us need it
to be in Anchorage, move it to the road system where
it can be reached. I don't think any of us here in
Anchorage care whether it's in town or not, just close
enough so that we can access our representatives ....
Thanks for getting this subject back out in the open
where it belongs. I'd sure appreciate you keeping at
it. Thank you.
CHAIR COGHILL informed the committee that there had been a
request to have this meeting videoconferenced, but those
contracting with the university don't work on the weekends.
6.2
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that HB 1 specifies moving the
legislature to Anchorage because there would be substantial
savings due to the infrastructure of the state's administration.
As Representative Green pointed out earlier, the vast majority
of the state's administration is housed in the Anchorage area.
Therefore, the executive branch's substantial investment
wouldn't have to be replicated [if the legislature was moved to
Anchorage]. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that HB 1 has
to do with the legislature, not the state capital; that is a
huge distinction. Alaskans voted for the capital to be located
in the Willow/Mat-Su area. However, that requires that the
legislature and the bureaucratic apparatus of the state's
administration be moved as well, which would be relatively
costly.
8.7
ANDRE McLEOD began by thanking the committee for holding this
meeting on a Saturday because it is more convenient. Mr. McLeod
noted her agreement with Mr. Dudley's comments. This makes
common sense. [If HB 1 passed,] legislators may feel better
because they can stay home. Furthermore, it would lower the
cost for citizens to be involved with their government. Ms.
McLeod identified HB 1 as a "people's bill." She said, "Please
do whatever you can to bring the legislature here. Whatever you
do, have it done here so we can be part of it." Many issues
regarding taxation are coming up and the [citizens of Alaska]
need to be involved. Furthermore, the upcoming issues are going
to require some "out of the box" thinking that she didn't
believe would occur in Juneau.
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that Ms. McLeod brought up taxation
and access in her testimony. He said, "It is kind of an
inadvertent tax on the people of Alaska to have access to their
state and that's one of the reasons why I wanted to bring this
committee up to Anchorage was so we would tax you less." He
reiterated the importance of face-to-face communication.
MS. McLEOD remarked that she has involved herself in the process
quite a bit. Sometimes the technology doesn't work and other
times she has been told that she couldn't speak.
CHAIR COGHILL said that he became involved in politics because
he attended a committee hearing and he couldn't testify, which
frustrated him. Chair Coghill asked if there was anyone else
who wished to testify. There was no response.
12.2
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that Ms. McLeod is an active
participant in Alaskan government throughout the year. Then
Representative Green turned to the following three points.
Representative Green pointed out that HB 1 refers only to the
legislature moving not the capital moving. However, he reminded
everyone that in 1994, 55 percent voted to move the capital.
The capital move issue is a popular issue among Alaskans.
Furthermore, there are over 800 miles from the center of
population in Alaska and the capital. If one were to take an
800 mile swath around the nation's capital, there is a large
concentration of people. However, there is such a distance
[between the capital and the population center] in Alaska
compared to most places. Therefore, the earlier comparison with
Washington, D.C. is not appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN returned to his earlier comment that six
commissioners are already located in Anchorage. He clarified
that there are actually seven commissioners that are located in
Anchorage. "That's either seven existing, or very likely to be
confirmed ... commissioners," he said. Therefore, much of
Alaska's government is already located in Anchorage and thus
things won't be disrupted but rather will be streamlined by
moving the legislature to Anchorage.
15.1
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that Ms. McLeod's point is the
central issue of the entire debate. The legislature always
concerns itself with the cost of legislation. He said:
We are looking at the cost and the fiscal note to the
population of the State of Alaska, and they want and
need access to their legislature. And that's the
idea. There may be some modest savings in some per
diem issues and so forth, but I think number one we
need a new building ... for the legislature that's
functional. Number two, that hall should be located
in an area that's accessible to people so it costs
them less. That's why Anchorage actually is a much
better location than the Mat-Su area because of the
transportation opportunities for the people in the
rural areas of the state and from [outside] the state
to fly and get here. ... we are on the road system.
For those folks on the road system, it's kind of a
push and maybe somewhat of a slight advantage ... to
get to the Mat-Su area. All things considered, the
vast majority of people that wanted to access their
government will probably end up on an airplane. And
it's certainly cheaper and faster to come through the
Anchorage transportation hub, I think.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned an Anchorage Daily News Letter
to the Editor by former Senator Arliss Sturgulewski who said, as
did Mr. Henri, that the legislature has more important things
than a capital move to address. However, Representative
Rokeberg believes his priorities are right because the existing
capitol building will not last. Although "band-aid" fixes can
be done and the Alaska Committee can add additional space to the
capitol building to improve the building, he wasn't sure that
the building could be repaired enough to meet existing codes
unless it is closed for several years. Representative Rokeberg
concluded by saying, "We've moved the capitol before from Sitka
to Juneau and we can move it again."
18.0
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON informed the committee that the economy of
Southeast Alaska is on a downward spiral since the decline of
the timber industry. Therefore, a move at this time would hit
Southeast Alaska [hard]. She pointed out that she lives in
Wrangell and has to disrupt her family along with her staff in
order to go to Juneau for session. That won't change by moving
the legislature to Anchorage. Furthermore, she said that it
takes her longer to get to Juneau than it does for an Anchorage
legislator. Representative Wilson assured the committee that
when she asked her constituents if they wanted the legislature
to move, 100 percent of them opposed such a move.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON turned to earlier testimony regarding the
limited access to the legislature by constituents and school
children. She asked, "Would [it] be alright if all at once it
was reversed and it was the children in Juneau that didn't have
[access] to the legislature. I don't quite get the correlation
there." Representative Wilson said, "I want to make it clear
that no matter where the legislature is held that there will be
large numbers of people who will not have access to the whole
session."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reminded everyone that she was a member of
the North Carolina legislature for three terms. North Carolina
has more miles of road per capita than any state in the nation.
The longest anyone would have to travel to get to the capital of
North Carolina is six hours. However, Alaska has more
participation in the legislative proceedings than North Carolina
does. She attributed Alaska's high participation to the
teleconference system in Alaska. She also noted that there will
be people who will, no matter the location of the legislature,
choose to testify via teleconference rather than in person. She
noted her surprise that only nine people from Anchorage turned
out today.
CHAIR COGHILL interjected that when the committee met on HB 1 in
Juneau there were not that many from Juneau at that meeting, but
they were represented by the Mayor of Juneau and the Alaska
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified that she meant that the
percentages of people that came out to testify doesn't
[correlate] with the amount of population in Anchorage. People
are using the argument that if the legislature was located in
Anchorage, more people would participate. However, that is not
necessarily the case. Representative Wilson pointed out that
Gavel to Gavel, provided by the City of Juneau, provides people
across the state the ability to know what is going on with the
political process. She concluded by reiterating that a move at
this time would be a "death blow" to Southeast Alaska's already
suffering economy.
21.6
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that when she first became a
legislator, Jamie Parsons was the Mayor of Juneau. At that
time, she was surprised the time and expense Juneau was
expending in order to thwart any capital or legislative move.
She suggested to Mayor Parsons that some day the capital will
move because the public will insist on such. However, in the
meantime Juneau should develop an economic activity that would
be available when that [move] occurs. Therefore, she suggested
building up the University of Alaska - Southeast.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES announced, however, that she couldn't
support HB 1 at this time because of the divisiveness between
the people of Anchorage and the rest of the state. Part of that
divisiveness is due to the lack of economic activity,
infrastructure, et cetera for many of the rural areas.
Therefore, she believes that issue should be dealt with first.
Furthermore, there should be assistance with the Southeast
economy should a move occur. Although she recognized that some
of the aforementioned arguments to move the legislature are
valid, she didn't believe now is the time.
23.6
REPRESENTATIVE FATE thanked everyone for their testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that he has a
letter from Sherri R. Jackson (ph), President, Sand Lake
Community Council, supporting HB 1. He also pointed out that
the executive branch has a new and functional premise, the
Atwood Building in Anchorage, and the court system has new
facilities under construction in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Therefore, the legislature should also have premises that are
functional and accessible to the people.
25.0
CHAIR COGHILL thanked everyone for participating. He closed
[the public testimony] portion of HB 1 and announced that HB 1
would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:58
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|