Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/27/1998 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 304 - MOVE LEGISLATURE TO ANCHORAGE Number 0532 CHAIR JAMES announced the next item of business would be HB 304, "An Act relating to the location of the convening of the legislature in regular session; repealing provisions relating to student guests of the legislature; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Representatives Green and Rokeberg. Number 0623 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature came before the committee. He stated that there is not much needed in the way of introduction of the concept of providing better access to the people of Alaska to their legislature. He said HB 304 directs the legislature to meet in the Municipality of Anchorage beginning in January 2001. Mr. Logan pointed out HB 304 does not move the capital. He pointed out the results of the 1994 statewide ballot initiative indicated that there is considerable statewide support and majority support in Southcentral Alaska for the legislature to meet in Anchorage. House Bill 304 directs the Legislative Council to arrange for an appropriate meeting place to meet. MR. LOGAN indicated the current dimensions of the House chambers as being 60 feet by 52 feet. He pointed out it is the largest meeting place in the legislature. He said it is not anticipated that arranging for an appropriate meeting place in Anchorage would be much of a problem. MR. LOGAN said while credit should be given to the Alaska Committee for their efforts to make Juneau a better host to legislators and staff, their efforts simply can not overcome Juneau's remote geographical location. Navigational improvements at the airport, telecommunications infrastructure and more available housing have all made Juneau a better capital city, but none of these improvements have gotten a majority of legislators in touch with the majority of their constituents. MR. LOGAN continued that in comparison to the capital move, they believe the legislative move does not have the same impact on existing departments. Two of the larger departments have more personnel in Anchorage then they do here in Juneau. He said department commissioners and the Governor also have offices in Anchorage. One commissioner designee has already stated that she is moving her office from Juneau to Anchorage. He said they believe the alleged problems of separating the legislative session from the administrative offices in Juneau is a "red herring." Number 0909 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, Co-Sponsor of HB 304, came before the committee. He said he believes Mr. Logan has reviewed the situation in a reasonable manner. He said he would like to bring a few other points to the attention of the committee. Representative Rokeberg said he has lived in Alaska since 1946, and first came to Juneau in 1946, on the SS Baranof. He indicated he went to Anchorage in 1947 when he was three or four years old, on the SS Aleutian. He pointed out that he had an opportunity to come to Juneau once to do a consulting job for Behrends Bank in the late 1970s. Number 0955 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he first walked into the Capitol Building in 1994, to be sworn in as a legislator. Representative Rokeberg said he had been active in the business and political affairs of the state for approximately 30 years and had never been in the Capitol Building. He said he believes that is typical of most Alaskans. Representative Rokeberg said, "That's the key element and the key issue when we talk about the capital move itself, but in this instance we're asking for the consideration of just moving the legislature. And I think that's the most important thing and one of the overriding things (indisc.) this particular -- these legislative bodies, during their periods of operation, are just not available to the average citizen of this state. It's too costly to come to Juneau to meet with your legislators and to testify at committee hearings. The legislature has done a lot in endeavoring to overcome some of these problems by having teleconferencing and other telecommunication devices that we're looking at. I think we have some T.V. type screens that sit in the Anchorage LIO (Legislative Information Office), but I never seen them on during a legislative hearing. But I think we're trying in some of those things, but frankly, I don't believe they're really adequate. There is no -- I don't think there is any situation where a constituent or a member or citizen of this state can be -- not meet directly with their representatives in both the House and Senate I think is the most important thing." Number 1137 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he would like to make a few comments about the building the legislature meets in. He said, "This is the State Capitol Building with an 'o,' and Juneau is the State Capital with an 'a.' And we're talking about moving the legislature (indisc.). Normally, most state capitals include the executive and legislative branches, and in many instances also the seats of the judicial branch of the government. Alaska is the only state in the Union that does not have a capitol building built for the purpose of housing state government. This is, of course, a federal building - was started in 1929, delivered in 1931, which certainly has served its purpose over the years, but it was never designed to be a state capitol building. And frankly, it's some 68 years old right now and it's obsolete and antiquated, and frankly Madam Chair, it's on its last legs. There is no question but what this building needs to be replaced. I would say currently, right now, this direction despite all the good efforts of our legislative maintenance folks and all the money we pour into it, is a relic of life-threatening importance to the people who occupy this building. There is the numerous life safety violations of any building code you wish to subscribe to. Most of the municipalities in the state of Alaska, and the state of Alaska itself (indisc.), the uniform building code. There are so many violations here, it's quite something. First and foremost, I believe this building fairly needs a new sprinkler. There is an issue whether it's 75 feet or more in its (indisc.) in it's height, but I believe it is. Therefore, it would be under a high-rise requirement. And therefore, any other -- any jurisdiction in the United States would be mandated to have a sprinkler system throughout. This building does not." Number 1335 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the geotechnical engineering and the structural integrity of the building is certainly in question. He said he believes the building is a type three geotechnical zone which requires structural engineering to be able to withstand the potentiality of modest earthquakes. He pointed out that he knows that the ceiling system is not wired in such a manner for earthquake potentialities. Number 1429 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the accessibility for the disabled community and we've said a tremendous amount of money has been spent on the building. He said the building is a historic structure. He said, "To meet the letter of the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) requirements, we have I think, in a large part, done that. But, Madam Chair, have we met the spirit of the law? This particular building is not easily accessible by the disabled community and I think that's something we need to be aware of. In spite of all the ramps that we built, the bathroom and shower we built, and the other areas that we have for access to the building -- I believe the elevator cabs are marginally sized, but I think legal. But still it's marginal in terms of their size. I think the most damning thing about the building is its floor configuration as it relates to the fire code. There is numerous dead-end corridors in this building and inadequate escape routes for accessing on all the floors. There is a 20 foot dead-end corridor rule in the uniform building codes. My office on the ground floor is illegal unless I jump through the window. That's not an access that's allowed under the building code. The House chambers -- I think the Senate chambers are also illegal. You cannot exit through an assembled area and have a designated fire exit. Therefore, I think both the House and the Senate chambers are illegal in their configuration." Number 1611 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued, "And I'd just like to point out, Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the committee - the Labor and Commerce Committee, I have the distinct honor of having a committee room on the ground floor area of this building. Madam Chair, this room has a stairway in the middle of the room that people - when I have a few people come for the intricate bills which (indisc.) have this morning, people would be sitting on the stairway up to the back courtyard area of the building. I suggest that the room is too small. It's inadequate to have meetings. I don't -- with the possible exception of the Senate and the House Finance Committees, there is not a committee meeting room in this building that can accommodate the needs of the public, barely its members or the television cameras that we need to have in the room. No matter where any committee in this state sat, we absolutely need to have such things as the Gavel to Gavel broadcasting to bring everybody in the state together so people knows what's going on in their capitol building. I don't care if (indisc.) Juneau, Anchorage, Willow or out in Bethel. And I think that's really important. We need to have adequate design for the telecommunications of the twenty-first century and frankly, Madam Chair, this building really can't accommodate that." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I guess, in closing, I would just like to say I know a few years back the people of the city of Juneau had an election here, October 5, 1993. And they had a proposition on the ballot to build a $50 million building for the state government center. I've talked to a few people about it, I think there was some concerns at the time because there was the Frank Initiative, and so forth, on the ballot in 1994. And there was concerns, particularly in the Senate, that the legislature wouldn't move into the building if the people of Juneau built the building. So I can understand some of the reluctance to vote for or against that proposition. Madam Chair, I would deposit that citizens of this community voted by 6,659 against imposing a 2 percent sales tax to build a legislative hall and then 4,067 in favor. So by a 3 to 2 majority, this particular community rejected the concept of paying for a legislative hall. And there again, echoed their sentiment about this particular legislature being here. I think this particular legislature has been very important to the economy of this particular city and it's a very important thing, no doubt. But Madam Chair, I think that the access and the ability of the citizens of this state to their government is a more important and overriding concern. And just one final note on the cost - I'd be happy to try to answer some of those questions the committee may have. Even I have the background in some 25 years of commercial real estate business in Anchorage and in the state of Alaska, I've spent my entire career building and developing and marketing high-rise and office building structures and other types of buildings throughout this state, so I have a degree of knowledge about those costs and related items. I think there might be a marginal cost to moving the capital or, excuse me - please forgive me, the legislature to Anchorage based on the - not on square footage, the efficiency in which we look at the needs and the net costs. If you look at the fiscal notes you have from the executive branch, I find that really humorous that the executive [branch] is going to spend $2.8 million a year to travel up to Anchorage to testify before the legislature. I don't know. They haven't heard of the $220 fare that Alaska has out here and the fact that they almost everyone of them has premises and office space already in Anchorage. So I find that really more than humorous they come up with outlandish figure that has no meaning whatsoever. If that's the case, then the state doesn't know how to budget their money properly for other items if that's the kind of fiscal note they come up with." Number 2052 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were questions of Representative Rokeberg. Number 1138 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, "I appreciate your comments on the building and I was on the assembly when the issue for the voters. I voted on the assembly to take the issue to the voters building a new capitol. And I think you probably gave the reason that the vote went the way it did when you said -- and I'm sure you understand this as a 25-year professional real estate business that, 'You don't build a building unless you can make sure you've got a commitment that it's going to be occupied.' I thought that was a compelling argument that was made. I think it was the compelling argument that was made, even though I voted to take the risk anyway. I'm sure you understand, as a 25-year professional in the real estate business, that an issue before the people there needs to an assurance that (indisc.). I guess the question I have, Madam Chair, for the (indisc.) sponsor of the bill is that -- I'm struggling how you ask this and I appreciate the extent of the testimony you gave on the condition of the building because I think many of us share that, but I would be interested in your views on kind of a 'cowboy credo,' which is you take care of the animal that is doing all the work before you take care of the cowboy. You don't eat your beans until you fed the oats to the horse, and this is an especially important credo, I think, after I've spent an awful lot of time this last summer visiting other state facilities. It seems to me that if we're going to talk about fixing up buildings that maybe we get to this building that serves our needs after we get to the school buildings that are not serving student needs, and after we get to the ferries that aren't serving the needs of Alaskans who travel on the ferries, and after we get to roads, the harbors, the airports that aren't serving the needs of Alaskans, both in the urban and rural situations." Number 2300 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I guess I'd like to tell you that I'd be the first to co-sponsor, with you, a bill for a new capitol building, but I'd feel uncomfortable doing that before we have satisfied the needs of some of these other Alaskans that are out there. I would appreciate your comments on the prioritization of buildings that need to be fixed or repaired or built again." Number 2329 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is something that all members need to look at in terms of prioritization of what the spending requirements are. Clearly, there is an extraordinary number of needs. He said he believes the deferred maintenance task force came up with about $1.6 billion of identified needs in the state. He said he is very sensitive to that particular need in the state. Representative Rokeberg asked where the tens of billions of dollars spent since the 1970s go. Representative Rokeberg said he believes his past colleagues didn't really do the job necessary to keep the backlog of maintenance down to a minimum. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "But nevertheless, I think when you look at the fundamental needs of the state that we have to perform the duties of government, and when you do that, you need to be housed and you need to be housed in the buildings that are efficient and safe. And when we reach that point, and believe me, Madam Chair - Representative Elton, I believe we both share the view that this building only has so much life that can be breathed back into it because of the problems with it. I mean there is numerous state capitol buildings. For example, in the summer I was in Denver and went into the Colorado State Capitol Building. It was built in 1884 - a significantly older building than this, but it was built in such a manner and (indisc.) type U.S. state capitol building with the massive structures and open spaces and the architecture at the time -- that it is a very functional building to this day. But this building is not because it was not intended to be a capitol building and because of its suffering from these problems that I think this building is going to have to be replaced within the next 10 to 15 years perhaps. And I think that the telecommunication demands and what's going to be happening in those areas will accelerate that need to have a new building. So I certainly wouldn't put this building and its replacement, which needs to be done, above some of the more pressing needs of the state. But to say that we don't have need for it and we can't put that in our priority list is not really accurate. We need to recognize that we need the proper structure to conduct business in." Number 2630 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he was significantly surprised at the fiscal note. He asked Representative Rokeberg if there are calculations as to what would be saved by moving the legislature to Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated he hasn't ran any hard numbers. He noted he hasn't seen a fiscal note from the legislature. Representative Rokeberg informed the committee members he has seen past studies that relate to the existing number of square feet that is occupied in Juneau at about 107,000 square feet. He said he knows the 107,000 square feet is not a valid number because it is based on the existing premises and not on new design premises which would be significantly more efficient. He referred to 1995 legislative studies and said there is a bill of $727,000 just for telephone installation on the new premises in Anchorage. Representative Rokeberg said he thinks that is ridiculous and said in the private sector, you can go to the suppliers and say, "We'll take your service if you install the system." He said that costs zero. Number 2922 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the problem is identifying the exact efficient amount of square feet. He said the relocation costs are grossly overstated. Representative Rokeberg said, "The fact that we have existing premises in Anchorage, which we are paying about close to a half a million a year for right now for the LIO office there, with all these (indisc.) things I think I've come up with rough number where there may be a net increase cost to the state if we were to lease premises in Anchorage for the legislature which would be a temporary housing through a long-range capitol building wherever -- would be maybe in the range to $200,000 to $300,000 net if you're very very tight on the budget. I mean this is rough number - say $200,000 to $500,000 cost. But Madam Chair, I'm going to tell you right now the cost to the constituents and the people of the state of Alaska from flying from Anaktuvuk Pass to Barrow to Cape Romantzof to Ketchikan to Juneau vis- -vis Anchorage is about -- it's got to be a couple of million bucks a year. So that's the issue. How do you balance that? That's a subjective type statement. So if there is a net increase of hard costs of anywhere from $200,000 to $500,000, the macro economic number of $2 million to $3 million of savings to the people of the state of Alaska is more important. So I would say if you buy into that reasoning, the city of Juneau is charging a tax on the people of the state of Alaska to have the capital here in old Juneau because it costs too much to get here. And the people that don't come here, they defer it because they can't afford it. That's an indirect tax, so that's the point. So the numbers become kind of subjective, Representative Dyson, when we look at...." Number 3130 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN came before the committee to testify. He said, "You heard economically and the problems with the building, you've heard those kinds of comments. Mine are going to be more humanitarian. In the fact that -- first of all though let me address one issue that was discussed on the capitol building and I cite some states like Alabama where the capitol building was built with the rotunda and all the accouterments of a nice capitol building, but for efficiency sake they now congregate their legislature in a building out of the capital. The capitol now is a museum that people are charged to go and visit. So there are uses for a building, especially a building like this, it was never intended to be a capitol building." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN continued, "But now the humanitarian side, we can kind of look at the map behind you and indicate that in no other state does a person have to drive 800 miles, through two international boarders, and catch a ferry to drive to its state capital. No other state has the dispreponderance of it's citizens so far removed from its capital site. And Madam Speaker, If you were to include the area around Anchorage, instead some 45 percent of the population and its representation, the commutable distance including Wasilla and Palmer and those areas that do now commute, there are many workers who commute into Anchorage daily, you'd be up in the neighborhood of 60 percent of the people as well as 60 percent representation of those people all within driving range of the capital. I submit to you that is a tremendous improvement over this isolated location that we're in. I don't see anything negative about the city, it's a magnificent, warm, beautiful - beautiful place to be. As a vacation site, as a place to live, it's a wonderful place, so I'm not condemning the city by any means I'm just merely saying it's not an efficient place to conduct state business." Number 3338 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "If you would consider the average person, and we are a state that's comprised supposedly of citizen legislators, we're not career politicians - at least the majority of us are not, that you actually cut out of the loop a significant number of potentially good legislators in the fact that they are either forced to do one of two things from that area that comprises 60 percent of the state. They either have to uproot their children and bring them down here out of their school, or leave the family at home and disrupt the family by having the legislature come down here. Now there is transportation to and from but that then becomes an extreme economic burden on the legislator. So in anyway you look at it, it's not a reasonable expectation to continue to say that as the rest of the state grows, and the representation moves more and more to the central, southcentral part of the state that they should remain out of the loop so to speak. And Madam Speaker, other than the 5 percent of the legislators who live in Juneau, even the outlying areas of the rest of the state, the bush areas as it is often referred to, all have to come through Anchorage before they get a plane to come on down to Juneau. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have to go to that extreme to get down here." Number 1824 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "And finally I submit to you that while driving in Alaska is a risk no matter where you are, and that's acknowledged by anybody, insurance companies and the like, but when you have to subject yourself to long night time hours of driving in order to get here, even a reasonable two, sometimes three days, certainly those who drive straight through are in harms way. We had another example of that in this convening this year, Madam Speaker, with a legislative aide having gone off the road, rolled down a 60 foot embankment, ended up upside down, destroyed the car, fortunately was not killed. Now that doesn't mean there won't be accidents if the state legislature moves and convenes in Anchorage, but they won't be subjected to the long driving periods - the fatigue factor that takes over. What I am suggesting is that looking at it from all of the aspects, the economic aspects, the fact that the building is inadequate, and the fact that we are talking about the humanitarian aspect of getting the best possible people that we can get to represent the people of this fine state, we shouldn't exclude a large number of those, either because of the fear of driving or because of the disruption of the family. So, I would, as was done in the last legislative session and has been tried for the three legislative sessions that I've been in, would request that we consider moving this on up the line. I realize that there were some questions asked about financing and that might be appropriate that we would take a shot at a more reasonable number. It's ironic when an Administration seems to like a bill, the fiscal note is very low. When they dislike a bill, the fiscal note is very high. That may just be (indisc.), I don't know. But I think we could probably get numbers a little more reflective of what really would happen and so I would appreciate the committee taking all those things into consideration." Number 3708 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON jokingly said, "I appreciate the inference that - because the capital is in Juneau we attract a higher caliber candidate." He pointed out the sponsor statement suggests that perhaps the quality of legislative staff and quality of legislators from outlying areas had been dragged down to some extent because of special circumstances that the capital being in Juneau. It is easy for me to say that Alaskans are very lucky with the quality of legislators that they get, they're very lucky at the quality of staff they attract. While we have our disagreements about the way things ought to be done, I don't think that those disagreements are based in any way on where the work is being done. And having said that, much to the defense of my other colleagues here on the committee, I guess the only question I have is can you - I'm trying desperately to think, but I can not think of another state in which the executive branch and the legislative branch are separated by a distance of (indisc.) miles. Am I missing something in the experience of other states that suggest that maybe they ought to be together. Number 1964 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded, "No, I think just like we will drift off into the fact that we need two bodies of (indisc.) legislature. I won't get into that donny brook either. I think by convention we have grown up with the fact that the capital is where the legislature moves - lives and does their work. But Alaska, as we all know is a very unique state as I mentioned. I don't know of any other state that you have to go so far to get to the capital. No, they don't normally and wouldn't have in the, early stages of the majority of the states in the nation, have the ability to converse as freely as we do now. But on one hand, we say it's all right to have the capital located remotely from it's citizens and they can somehow get here. We say we shouldn't have it dislocated from the governor. I submit to you, as you heard earlier, that the governor and nearly all, if not all of the commissioners, are in Anchorage during the session as well as during the interim. A significant number of the state employees are also located up there. I don't think you'll find that in other states either where you have such a dispropondent number of state employees outside the state capital. So, we're unique in Alaska and yes, you're right, it would be another uniqueness of the state." Number 4007 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, I guess that when you say that we're unique and the fact that preponderance operations elsewhere, I mean I just remind you of Salem, Oregon and Olympia, Washington, Sacramento, California. I mean I think there are other examples which it does work where the legislative body and the executive branch are separated from the preponderance population." Number 4030 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he thinks that's true. He said you can get to Salem, Oregon and most parts of Oregon in a couple of hours. That's not true in Alaska. You can drive to your capital while they are not in the major metropolitan areas that would be here. They're certainly far more accessible. Number 4100 CHAIR JAMES said having recognized and looked at the capital situations all around the country, historically, the capitals are not in the center of the population. She said when you have a capitol building, generally it doesn't grow like other areas. It's prohibited from growing because it is housed with state government employees. It doesn't lend itself to industry and all the other kinds of things. She stated that's a progressive thing. Chair James said, "If you look at all the capitals in the other states, you'll find the place where the capital is an insignificant place -- which, incidently, is one of the issues of the state of Alaska and the people wanted to deal with and they didn't want to have the capital in Fairbanks or Anchorage and chose to have it somewhere else where it wouln't be insignificant, where you could concentrate on the state of Alaska. The whole issue is around money. So I had to say that because it's not that we put the capital where there isn't any people living. It is that people don't do the same things in a capital that they do in other towns. Quite frankly, Fairbanks doesn't want one. So, I want to put that on the record right now. We don't want the capital and all of the associated things that go (indisc.). You'd never notice it was there." Number 4221 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I certainly concur with that and the consideration when they were going to think about moving the capital, was to an area certainly that this is very very remote - small outside the city. But again, I remind you it was only an hours commute from the majority of the people. And that's not unusual in other states and, yes, the economics destroyed that. And I also want to reiterate, because I know there was a poll taken by an Anchorage television station, talking about this bill which is going to try and move the capital. That, again, is not the issue. It's not the capital, just the legislature convening." Number 4304 BRAD PIERCE, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, came before the committee to testify. He said the Governor doesn't support this HB 304 at all. The seed of government is in Juneau. It would be expensive and wasteful to move the legislature to Anchorage. Mr. Pierce pointed out that he has worked for the past three governors and he believes he has compiled a fiscal note about five times. He explained that they took the figures prepared for Senator Phillips two years ago and added some inflation. He said the fiscal note has consistently come in at about $2.5 million to $3 million net cost to the state to move the legislature. Mr. Pierce said in the past, every time they have turned in the fiscal notes, the sponsor has gotten his own fiscal note through Legislative Finance. Number 4436 CHAIR JAMES said recently she received information from Legislative Budget and Audit of all the travel expenses for commissioners, et cetera. She referred to the calculation of the fiscal note and asked Mr. Pierce if he subtracted the other expenses of going from Juneau to Anchorage. In other words, is that on top of what is already being spent or would some of it replace some of the spending that is currently occurring. Number 4508 MR. PIERCE explained it is a net figure. He said the travel that is already being done is factored in. He pointed out that the Department of Natural Resources had a zero fiscal note because there are already people in Anchorage. Mr. Pierce said the Department of Corrections had a very low fiscal note. He said the reality of it is that the administrators spend most of their time in Juneau. Number 4554 CHAIR JAMES said there isn't a number as to what the general public pays to get to Juneau as opposed to the cost if they went to Anchorage. She stated that we don't know how much the public is paying compared to what the government pays. She said there is no estimate. MR. PIERCE indicated there isn't an estimate. TAPE 98-7, SIDE A Number 0001 DENNIS EGAN, Mayor, City and Borough of Juneau came before the committee to testify. He read his statement into the record. "On behalf the assembly and the citizens of the City and Borough of Juneau, I want to thank you for allowing me to testify this morning because our community is very appreciative of the positive impacts our state legislature makes on our community and on our region. "I hope that you'll appreciate the advances in Alaska's capital city has made in providing opportunities of access to all residents of the state. "Since statehood in 1959, just 38 short years ago, Juneau has been in a unique position of trying to focus not only on looking at the critical elements of sustainability, economic vitality, social equity, and environmental health, but single issue a few other committees in the nation, or for that matter the free world face, and that is the issue of being the ultimate distruction of our city through the ballot process by way of a vote in the statewide electorate. "Eight times since statehood Juneau has faced economic and social upheavals that normal communities would not face. But with dedication and diligence we've had to confront this issue with absolutely no idea what the outcome would be, regarding our basic economic and social vitality. "The issue here is moving the seed of state government to an area outside Juneau where some say is a location that is closer to the people. While we've ultimately won all those battles, the most recent in 1994, these votes take a tremendous toll on the citizens of our community who have lived here for any length of time. When we should be attending to make Juneau a model for sustainable development, we have had to spend untold resources on fighting efforts to change the seed of state government in the state of Alaska. In just the past two elections, 1982 and again in 1994, and associated ballot initiative battles, it has cost our community of 32,000 residents, since statehood, over $7 million in taxpayer and community donated funds to fight these battles. So when folks in the rest of the United States talk about sustainability, we here in Juneau call it 'survivability.' "To sustain Juneau as the capital of Alaska we're accomplishing many things, I think, to make our city more accessible to the rest of Alaska and to the world. Number 0247 "You see I believe that access comes in many other ways than an interstate highway. We were one of the first communities on the West Coast of the United states to recognize the importance of the Internet. We were one of the first to establish a home page on the Worldwide Web, affording access not only to Alaskans to their capital city, but to anyone in the world with inquiries about our community. "We've been instrumental in providing electronic access to video teleconferencing through a major investment in telecommunications technology. This technology allows citizens from throughout Alaska to travel electronically instead of by air to conduct meetings of state government, the state legislature and local governments without ever leaving the confines of their local communities. "Juneau is a major investor in C-SPAN type programming called Gavel to Gavel, here today, that allows over 400,000 Alaskans in the state, about 80 percent of the adult population, to view uninterrupted coverage of the daily deliberations of the Alaska State Legislature during you 120 day sessions. Number 0349 "With the largest and least visible issue to accessability and sustainability to our committee most recently is now approaching from the air, and more than likely will have tremendous advances by March. The CBJ (City and Borough of Juneau), the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), the Nation Center for Atmospheric Research and Alaska Airlines are in the midst of a multimillion dollar research project that is going ultimately change the way airline travel is accomplished throughout the world. Juneau is at the forefront of development and implementation of this technology in which aircraft will not travel routes, as you know them now, but on courses dictated by global positioning satellites. They're now in the final testing here in Juneau and will ultimately be approved for commercial aviation worldwide. Because of this technology being developed here in Juneau, airports and the skies we fly throughout the world will see dramatic increases in safety and efficiencies. This technology also uses an enhanced ground proximity warning system originally developed for the cruse missile and used so accurately during the Gulf War in the Middle East. The system allows a pilot of an aircraft to know exactly what the terrain is in the flight path of the airliner. Needless to say, in Alaska this is extremely important. The ultimate result in Juneau alone will be landing minimum being lowered dramatically, 331 feet versus 3,500 feet, while making us not only one of safest airports in Alaska, but one of the safest airport in the world for aircraft approaches and departures. "We're doing many other things to make Juneau a better capital from increasing affordable housing, lowering our housing vacancy rate, getting a handle on managing our burgeoning tourism industry, working with mining concerns to bring their projects online - even initiating a vision plan for our city that includes Juneau remaining the state capital. "While these are just a few of the projects that we're undertaking and issues that we're confronting. I believe we're making great strides in making Juneau a better capital city for all Alaskans." Number 0554 MR. EGAN said, "I am personally, and I know 99 percent of Juneauites are very proud of the men and women that work in this building that represent not only my community, but communities from throughout the state and we're very proud of your tireless efforts to make Alaska a better state." Number 0621 CHAIR JAMES announced her position has been neutral on this issue. She said according to information in the committee file, people of her district voted against the capital move in the previous election. She pointed out that it is a matter of money with her constituents. It isn't that they wouldn't like to have the capital closer, but it is a matter of money. She noted they don't want to have the capital in Fairbanks. Chair James informed Mayor Egan she has been a big supporter of University of Alaska, Southeast. She said, "You're located in a place where you could have world class in oceanography and marine biology and those other issues. I think that you ought to push for those things. And I guess my advice to you is don't just be centered on that the capital staying here is what's going to keep you alive because there is a lot of other things to do it. In other words, put your eggs in more than one basket." Number 0746 MR. EGAN responded, "We're putting our eggs in more than one basket, Madam Chair. In fact you brought up the -- in fact we are in the process - in the formative stages of constructing a world class research facility from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) - that their project cost would be $78 million and the university's cost is projected at $22 million." Number 0811 CHAIR JAMES said it is a problem. She pointed out that Gavel to Gavel is finally being heard now on cable in Fairbanks. Last year it wasn't. She noted a lot of people who don't have cable still don't get Gavel to Gavel. Chair James said it is interesting that in Alaska where there is a closer contact with government than is experienced in any other state, we're still not happy about it. She pointed out there are LIO offices throughout the state. Other states don't have those kinds of communication, including teleconferences, experiences what we have. She said, "This issue is not going to go away. There is a sizable amount of the public that really doesn't like to have the capital in Juneau. So I understand the people in your city when they voted down spending the money or taxing themselves to build a capital building. That's an issue that's not going to be easily sold because that threat -- this bill that's in this committee today is not the last threat that you're going to hear on this. And so I understand that that does cause us a problem and the more people that we get in the Interior, and we're about crowded up down here so I don't know how many more people we can get down in Southeast, the scale is going to be tipped the other way. So my advice, again, is diversify and be sure you got your bases covered." Number 1100 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he personally appreciates the efforts that Juneau has made to make it a pleasant place to live. He said everything the city has done has been noticed by him. Representative Dyson said, "I will vote to move the legislature to Anchorage for, hopefully, public and personal reasons. But I'm very impressed with what you all have done and you're to be commended for it." Number 1143 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I think you touched upon an issue that we all ought to be concerned about, the diversification of not just the local economies and community economies, but the diversification of the state economy as well. And I mean I just want to emphasize -- I think what you were saying was that (indisc.) colleagues in Juneau have as well as the city council and assembly members in Fairbanks and assembly members in Anchorage and Kenai. I think one of the frustrating things that Juneau has always felt is that instead of diverting the resources that we've had on efforts where we just redivide the existing pie. If we had all concentrated on expanding the pie instead we'd all be better off. (Indisc.) felt significantly here in Juneau. I think it's probably shared in Fairbanks - the issue of programs moving from the Fairbanks campus to other campuses come up. I think we all share those kinds of frustrations when instead of concentrating on what we can do to make everything better and the pie get bigger, we have to spend an awful lot of time making sure that the slice of pie remains the same." CHAIR JAMES said here were no further witnesses to testify on HB 304. She indicated HB 304 would be held for further consideration
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|