Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
02/22/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB14 | |
| HB100 | |
| HB62 | |
| HB48 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 48-EXPENDITURE FOR CAPITOL CONSTRUCTION 9:41:07 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 48, "An Act relating to a determination of costs attributable to relocating the legislature or the state capital or of constructing a new capitol building in the present capital city, and to a determination of all costs of retaining the existing capitol building and keeping the state capital and legislature in the present capital city; relating to voter approval of certain bondable costs; and providing for an effective date." 9:41:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 48 as the bill sponsor. He explained that the idea for HB 48 came to him when he heard about a fast moving project to get a capitol building built in Juneau. He commented that the capitol building is not just another state building, and the location has always been of intense interest to the public. He discussed the FRANK Initiative [Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge], which was originally passed in 1978, and which requires that voters know the cost of any capitol relocation. This was repealed in 1982 and then reinstated in 1994. He said: I think that FRANK Initiative, although fully endorsed by the voters, is somewhat incomplete because it would allow perhaps $100 million or, if you follow the logical escalations that we've heard in every capital- related campaign, it's always more expensive than you think - two or three times more. So, $100 million, $300 million - whatever it ends up - the public deserves a voice in the process. [The proposed legislation is] a very simple bill ... to amend the FRANK Initiative to also require voter approval of expenditure of rebuilding the capitol, even within the same political jurisdiction, or even just down the street a block or two.... [It is] certainly more complicated than I've expressed here ... and I know there are rather legal entanglements that we'll probably get into. 9:45:47 AM CHAIR SEATON pointed out the phrase "bondable costs" in the bill's title as well as on page 2, line 22. He said: The issue I think that this is also talking about, but I don't know if it's fully addressed here, is if the municipality of the current capital would bond for the construction costs ... and the state would lease the building back, how does that relate to this statewide election to have an approved bond? REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that "this is a moving target," and he expressed his willingness to adapt to "whatever's thrown at me." He said, "Certainly the legislature has a role in whether or not to fund those. I think the City and Borough [of Juneau] could go out on [its] own and fund the building. I think they tried that mechanism a few years ago and it was rejected." 9:47:31 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Stoltze to get back to the committee with information on how the proposed funding mechanism would relate to the language in HB 48. 9:48:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the capitol is a building that the public will be paying for one way or another. He said that in all fairness, if the public is paying the bill, then the public ought to be the group that is entitled to vote on the issue. The FRANK Initiative as amended, he said, would simply say that the people rather than the legislature should make the decision as to whether or not they want to fund a building and how much they want to spend. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that the committee had earlier discussed funding a university building and no one had made an indication that the public should vote on that particular issue. She asked why the capitol is different. 9:50:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that the public has not expressed its opinion about buildings in the state with the frequency and intensity as it has regarding the capitol. He said that folks have a very intense opinion about the capitol, and the way the FRANK Initiative has been marketed has made people feel that they have a right [to an opinion]. He stated, "I am trying to extend something in statute that they feel they already have.... People do not view this as just any other state building." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said it's common sense that people of Alaska have some clue as to how much a capitol will cost no matter where it is located. He commented that it's a matter of full disclosure and fiscal responsibility. He offered to co-sponsor the bill. 9:53:30 AM AVRUM GROSS stated that he has been a resident of Alaska for 45 years and was formerly a practicing attorney. He said that he served as Attorney General under Governor Jay Hammond for six years. He noted that he was testifying on behalf of himself. He stated: HB 48 is an effort to amend the FRANK Initiative, and the FRANK Initiative, of course, is a part of that long-standing capital-move debate that we've probably all been a part of forever.... The first campaign to move the capital was going on in 1960.... The last time ... was a few years ago, and it went down about two to one [against it].... FRANK simply says that if ... the voters decide to move the capital, ... a process is set up where a commission is appointed to ... figure out all the costs of the move. And then to put it in a package where the voters can assess it and vote on it.... All possible bondable costs of the move, which basically means all capital costs which would be accrued, ... have to be put into a bond issue and then the ... people have to vote on it in a second vote. MR. GROSS pointed out that the one time the vote passed, in 1974 as he recalled, there was a commission, which cost a fortune for architects, lawyers, and financial consultants, who arrived at a figure that was close to $2 billion. He said that this figure was put on the ballot and defeated. 9:56:41 AM MR. GROSS said that the FRANK Initiative makes sense when discussing moving the capital to a new city, which could saddle the state with debt for years. However, he remarked, the concept does not apply to a single building in the existing capital city. He said: The bill as I read it requires that we go through the whole FRANK process once a decision is made to build a new capitol building in Juneau, and that means the commission and then the voters have to vote again on a new bond issue for all the possible bondable costs of construction, just like FRANK. But when you put it to this one building, let me tell you the kind of problems that show up. The first one is, of course, the bill doesn't define what a capitol is. A capital city ... is where Juneau is; that's the seat of government. A capitol building ... is traditionally where the legislature meets.... In Juneau, the legislature performs its functions in at least two buildings that I know of: this one and the Terry Miller Office Building across the street. You have committee meetings there, you have chambers there, [and] you have staff there.... MR. GROSS continued: It's not clear to me just how far this bill is meant to go. For instance, does it require a statewide vote on a new building to house new legislative chambers, and staff, and library? That's part of the legislative function. Would that be required? Would you need to set up a commission, do the bondable cost and such? Would it apply to a new building which was built for the governor and the attorney general?... What does it mean when you say that it has to be new when you're talking about an existing government city? For instance, would a major renovation of this building be considered a new building without a statewide vote? How big would the renovation have to be? Would you use the same kind of test as people use for building permits, where if you renovate so much of a building that it becomes ... treated as a new structure? What kind of rules would govern that?... Where does it have to be geographically to be a new building? Suppose the legislature decides that it wants to build out over the parking lot and connect to the Terry Miller Building with a skyway, for instance, and you build a new structure over there but it's connected to this building. Is that a new capitol building or is that just simply a renovation of the old capitol building...? 10:00:45 AM MR. GROSS continued: Finally, the bill requires that you ... figure out all of the bondable costs, and then put them on a GO [General Obligation] bond issue for the people to vote on. But what if there are no bondable costs?... What happens if the City of Juneau builds it, and issues bonds, and is liable for the bonds, and no state money is used at all? Then what is it that you would put on the ballot?... If the state isn't going to spend any money, why would the state insist on a vote? 10:02:11 AM MR. GROSS concluded that HB 48 would turn every effort of the legislature to try to improve the conditions of the legislative building and the capitol into lawsuits. "Until and unless the people decide they want to move the capital," he commented, "the legislature should make its decision on what buildings are necessary for legislative work on its own and move from there." 10:02:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Gross to submit a written copy of his testimony to the committee. [HB 48 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|