03/28/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB344 | |
| HB23 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2006
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act relating to the commissioner of administration's
appointing agents to perform for compensation certain
transactions related to vehicles; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall."
- MOVED CSHB 23(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act amending the definition of the term 'lobbyist' in the
Regulation of Lobbying Act; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 344
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLE TRANSACTION AGENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOHRING, RAMRAS
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) STA, FIN
02/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/16/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/21/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/02/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 23
SHORT TITLE: CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ROKEBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, FIN
03/19/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/19/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/23/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/23/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/12/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/12/06 (H) Heard & Held
01/12/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/17/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/17/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted changes made to a committee
substitute for HB 344, on behalf of Representative Ramras,
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 23.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05:05 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Ramras, Gardner, Gruenberg, and Seaton were
present at the call to order.
HB 344-VEHICLE TRANSACTION AGENTS
8:05:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 344, "An Act relating to the commissioner of
administration's appointing agents to perform for compensation
certain transactions related to vehicles; and providing for an
effective date."
8:05:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 23, Version 24-LS1082\I, Bannister,
2/28/06, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version I
was before the committee.
8:07:57 AM
JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Ramras, sponsor,
directed attention to page 2, lines 6-12, of Version I, where
she said changes were made related to disclosure.
8:08:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the word "agreement" on
[page 1], line 8, should be "aggrievance".
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 344 was heard and held at the
request of the sponsor.
HB 23-CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL
8:10:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 23, "An Act relating to construction of a legislative
hall."
[Before the committee was CSHB 23, Version 24-LS0164\F, Cook,
1/9/06.]
8:10:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 23, recalled that the committee had previously
expressed concern about "the provisions to repeal the FRANK
Initiative within the CS." He brought attention to two legal
opinions in the committee packet, as well as a copy of the
Office of the Attorney General's (AG's) opinion, dated 2/16/78.
He reviewed the history of the FRANK Initiative, citing the
amounts the public was told it would take to move the capital,
and stating, "The FRANK Initiative has been used as a foil to
defeat any ability to relocate the capital anywhere in the
state." He said he thinks Tamara Cook, Director, Legal
Services, has substantiated his own opinion that any relocation
of the capital outside of Juneau would not only require a vote
of the people, but two votes on the bondable cost issue. He
said he is confused by that phenomenon, but it is explained in
the aforementioned AG's opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that the FRANK Initiative ties
the legislature's hands "for eternity." Without the appeal of
the initiative, he said, there can be no public debate in the
state as to whether Juneau is the right location for a
legislative hall or capitol building. He stated, "The people of
this community, through the initiative process, have absolutely
muzzled any public discussion."
8:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had requested one of the two
previously mentioned legal opinions regarding whether it would
be necessary to "go through the FRANK Initiative process" if the
capitol building was destroyed by fire or natural disaster. He
said, "Legislative Counsel opines in the negative there ..., but
I'm not so sure that isn't the case if you can't move the
legislative hall without a vote of the people." The purpose of
the bill, he stated, is to decide where the legislature should
be located and to have a fair, level playing field and "allow
the need for a new capitol building to go forward."
Representative Rokeberg emphasized his opinion that the state
needs a new capitol building; the current capitol was
constructed beginning [in 1929, completed in 1931]. He said the
cost of remodeling the committee room being used for this
present meeting was approximately $54,000. He indicated that
the current capitol presents safety issues, as well.
8:16:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his appreciation of the work that has been
done to make the present capitol work.
8:17:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that there are no sprinklers in the
building.
8:17:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG spoke of building codes that require
sprinklers on any building above one story, noting that in 1975
the uniform building code only required sprinklers in buildings
over 75 feet high. The capitol has six floors, is in excess of
75 feet, and is out of compliance. He stated that the most
damning thing about the design of the capitol is its U-shaped
footprint, which creates dead-end corridors, the worst-case
scenario being Room 17 on the ground floor. He mentioned a 25-
foot corridor rule and a rule about not exiting through "a space
of assembly." Representative Rokeberg said the legislature has
done the best it can with the building, doing particularly well
complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act, but it still
cannot meet all those requirements. Because of the corridor
configuration, he said, the building cannot be "fixed in place."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Gatto, said he cannot remember what the exact
cost of installing new sprinklers would be, but he noted that
the capitol is over 90,000 square feet, and for new
construction, the "fit up" of sprinklers costs several dollars
per foot. The biggest problem, he said, is that "remedial
retrofit costs a good deal more than new installation.
8:21:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the capitol building is also lacking
ventilation in the offices.
8:23:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how the bill, as written, would
affect the FRANK Initiative.
8:23:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON told Representative Gardner to look at Section 5.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that the voters
turned down repealing the FRANK Initiative in 2002.
8:23:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that he did not have that
information with him, but offered his understanding that the
thrust of the vote in 2002 was to relocate the legislative hall
to Southcentral Alaska, temporarily using a place in Anchorage
until the move could be completed. To make that workable, he
surmised, the FRANK Initiative would have to have been repealed.
8:24:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "I believe that we're talking about the
proposition that would have moved the ... legislative hall
twice, or was that the capitol building?"
8:25:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied as follows:
No, that was the legislative hall. It was Mr.
Kalenka's [Uwe Kalenka of Alaskans for Efficient
Government] failed effort, and I'm awfully upset with
him for doing that. He got sufficient signatures put
on the ballot, and then about a month before the
election he walked away from it in the face of the
classic onslaught of the city fathers of Juneau and
their money machine cranking out their entirely
understandable desire to preserve the capital and the
legislative hall here in Juneau. So, the public tide
was running against them once again because ... of the
amount of money that's put in by the Alaska Committee
to maintain the capital here, which is entirely
understandable.
CHAIR SEATON asked, "You're not indicating there's anything
improper about that; you're just ..."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered, "No, not at all. It was a
political thing, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Kalenka just ...
walked away from it; he dropped the ball and ... politically he
wasn't able ... to get the support behind it he should have."
8:26:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that it may be possible to
put "a question pursuant to the FRANK Initiative on the ballot,
listing the costs of a particular move" simultaneously with a
[general obligation (GO)] bond measure that would be contingent
upon the passage of "the FRANK question."
8:26:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his understanding that that is
what has happened; a GO bond position was "on the ballot at the
time of the relocation, and assuming ratification ... it had to
come back for a second vote, though."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that that sounds very strange.
8:27:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, but said nevertheless that's the
case.
8:28:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a sentence from
Representative Rokeberg's memorandum [included in the committee
packet], which read:
The opinion concludes, "all costs which could legally
be covered by a bond issue must be placed on the
ballot and approved before money is expended on the
move."
8:29:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that there have been two votes
with dollar amounts on the ballot in the past. He offered
further details.
8:30:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he concurs with Representative
Rokeberg that something has to be done before there is a fire or
other catastrophe that occurs in the capitol that could result
in lost lives. He emphasized that the capitol is not a safe
building.
8:30:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This is a lawsuit waiting to
happen."
8:31:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS stated his adamant disagreement with the
views of Representative Rokeberg on the issue, but said he
agrees with him on "one thing." He said he thinks the drafters
of the FRANK Initiative were from Fairbanks and "in their
hearts" were really looking out for the health of Southeast
Alaska. He explained that to move any part of the capital out
of Southeast Alaska would affect approximately 70,000 and have a
major impact on all the communities in the area. He opined that
it would be better for the state to start a program to upgrade
the current capitol building to meet safety and fire standards
than to "put that kind of economic sanction on people in this
state - especially in [Southeast] Alaska."
8:32:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to [page 2 of the
memorandum from Tamara Cook to Representative Rokeberg], and he
noted that it shows some alternatives to a repeal of the FRANK
Initiative, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(1) include an exemption in HB 23 from
application of the provisions of the FRANK initiative;
(2) amend the FRANK initiative in some way to
make its application clear and to remove potential
constitutional issues; or
(3) repeal the FRANK initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his concern about an outright
appeal of the initiative. He asked Representative Rokeberg if
he would be amenable to one of the other solutions.
8:33:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered no. He explained that in his
opinion the adoption of HB 23 is the only way that Juneau will
ever have an opportunity to build a new capitol building for the
State of Alaska. He said the intent of the bill is to give a
level playing field to everyone in the state. He stated that he
frankly thinks that "Juneau would have a leg up," because the
city is already good at coming up with capitol building
initiatives, proposals, and architectural plans. He added, "The
one distinction of my history here on this is that they've
really been unwilling to pay for it. That's the nature of my
bill here; it says the political subdivision and wins it through
[Legislative Council] on a fair and equitable basis has to pay
for it." He stated that HB 23 is not "anti-Juneau"; it's a
different approach.
8:36:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to a point made in the memorandum from Ms.
Cook, regarding the interpretation of the FRANK initiative,
which read as follows:
Thus, taken literally, the language would apply to the
relocation of the legislature from the current capitol
building to another place within the capital city as
well as to the relocation of the legislature to a
place outside of the capital city.
CHAIR SEATON referred to another point made by Ms. Cook, which
read as follows:
Therefore, in context, I think it likely that a court
would decide that the FRANK initiative does not apply
to a relocation of the legislature from one place to
another within the capital city. This result is
especially likely if, as a factual matter, the capitol
building is damaged and becomes unavailable.
CHAIR SEATON warned that if, for example, there was a major fire
in the capitol [which rendered the building useless], people in
other areas of the state may file suit in junction against the
building [of a new capitol in Juneau], the entire process of the
FRANK Initiative may have to be followed, and the legislature
would have to meet in temporary warehouse space for quite
awhile. Chair Seaton said he thinks the committee needs more
information on the issue in order to decide "how else to
proceed."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested the committee could find the
answers it needs in the committee packet. He remarked that the
legal opinion has been in his possession for two months.
8:37:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO observed that the capital has been in
Southeast Alaska for 100 years. He asked if there is any
support for the argument that a state should reevaluate the
location of its capital every 100 years, for example. He added,
"Capitals all across the country have done that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that Representative Gatto had
answered his own question by pointing out that capitals in many
states have relocated. He recollected that Juneau has been the
capital of Alaska since [1906].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he heard that $100 million was the
estimated cost of constructing a new capitol building in Juneau.
He asked Representative Rokeberg if that seemed realistic.
8:39:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that he doesn't think $100
million is unrealistic, because architectural features desired
for a capitol would be more expensive than for a typical office
building. He estimated that the typical cost of commercial
office space is $150 per square foot, while the cost for a new
capitol building would range from $200-$300 per square foot.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that the new hospital in the
Matanuska-Susitna area costs $100 [per square foot] and is "big
enough to be a capitol."
8:40:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON suggested that the question to ask is "whether that
could be done if it wasn't on this site, without having to talk
about the bondable costs of all the ... private housing in the
area."
8:40:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that the FRANK initiative has
"clearly inflated the cost of relocation." He said many in the
commercial real estate business have said they could build the
capitol for nothing if given 640 acres of land, because profits
could be made off the development of the balance of the land.
The only loss would be to the economy of the City of Juneau, he
opined. Representative Rokeberg stated that he takes exception
to the comments of Representative Elkins regarding the impact of
the rest of Southeast Alaska, although he admitted that all
regions are interrelated economically. He said the intent of HB
23 is to move the legislature, not the capital.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:42:05 AM to 8:43:33 AM.
8:43:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO returned to his previous mention of the new
hospital to point out that the construction of a hospital
requires a high grade of construction, with many special
features. He concluded that the estimate of $2.8 billion
associated with the FRANK initiative was intended to cover the
construction of airports, roads, freeways, schools, and grocery
stores on difficult terrain. He opined that $100 [per square
foot] is sufficient, and he stated, "I have to support a bill
like this." He indicated that if there were [a legislative hall
in Southcentral Alaska], two-thirds of the state could drive to
it.
8:45:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said this issue has been talked about for a
long time, and it's time to take action. He posited that HB 23
is a reasonable approach.
8:46:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS reiterated his concern regarding the
regional impact to Southeast Alaska.
8:47:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that 57 legislators get to Juneau by
plane or boat. He said he wonders what the savings would be if
those same 57 could drive to work, and how that savings could
offset the cost of building a new capitol.
8:48:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS related that he owns a restaurant in North
Pole, Alaska, and when the federal government proposed closing
the Eielson Air Force Base, he and many others in the area "went
through great angst" in anticipation of the economic impact that
that potential base closure would cause. He said the community
successfully rallied against the closure. He stated his belief
that [moving the legislative hall out of Juneau] would create a
devastating economic impact to the capital city and, to a lesser
degree, to the rest of Southeast Alaska. He stated that out of
respect to the sponsor, he would vote to move HB 23 out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee, but he emphasized his
intent to "fight it aggressively" and vote against it on the
House floor. He spoke of retraction in populations in certain
areas of the state, and he indicated that the concentration of
economy and population in Anchorage resulting from a move of the
legislative center to that area would eventually have a negative
impact on Fairbanks.
8:51:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to existing statutes
AS 44.06.010-44.06.060, which read as follows:
Sec. 44.06.010. Site of capital.
The capital of the state is at the city of Juneau,
Alaska.
Sec. 44.06.050. Purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060.
The purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060 is to
guarantee to the people their right to know and to
approve in advance all costs of relocating the capital
or the legislature; to insure that the people will
have an opportunity to make an informed and objective
decision on relocating the capital or the legislature
with all pertinent data concerning the costs to the
state; and to insure that the costs of relocating the
capital or the legislature will not be incurred by the
state without the approval of the electorate.
8:54:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Seaton, said the
first part of the bill discusses a new building, and he said
that can be done without adherence to the FRANK initiative. He
stated that he does not have a problem with the rest of the
bill, except for "the repealer of the FRANK initiative." He
recalled that when he had asked the bill sponsor whether he
would support any of the alternatives suggested by Ms. Cook, he
had emphatically said no. He concluded, "So, it sounds like
this whole thing is tied up with the repeal of the FRANK
initiative, and unless we repeal the FRANK initiative
[Representative Rokeberg] doesn't want the bill."
8:55:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that he thinks the state - as
a matter of public policy - is not well-served by maintaining
the FRANK initiative on the books, "because of the abuse and
mischief that's been done with it in the past." That, he
explained, is why the initiative needs to be repealed.
8:56:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report [CSHB 23, Version 24-
LS0164\F, Cook, 1/9/06], out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:56:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected. She said she thinks it is
important to spread resource development across the state, which
includes keeping Southeast Alaska alive.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS maintained his previously stated
objection.
8:57:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that the state would not suffer a
loss from a move of the legislative hall, because the same
center of activity would be moved and the economics of the
state, on the whole, would not change drastically. He opined
that Southeast Alaska has a dynamic, rapidly growing tourist
industry, and "I believe they can move easily in that
direction."
8:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that his opposition of the bill
is focused on one issue: the sponsor's insistence that the
repeal of the FRANK initiative remain in the bill. He said his
concern focuses on two issues: the public's right to know and
the fact that the FRANK initiative was the product of an
initiative. He stated, "If an initiative like this is
overturned, I think it should be by an initiative."
8:58:41 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Lynn,
Ramras, and Seaton voted in favor of moving CSHB 23, Version 24-
LS0164\F, Cook, 1/9/06, out of committee. Representatives
Gruenberg, Elkins, and Gardner voted against it. Therefore,
CSHB 23(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:00:07 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|