Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/23/2005 09:30 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB23 | |
| HB48 | |
| HB176 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 23-CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL VICE CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 23 "An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall." REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 23, indicated that this is the third legislative session in which he has introduced the concept of the bill. Based on Juneau's actions, he said, the issue is back in people's minds. He specified that the bill relates to the construction of a legislative hall and not "the capitol building, per se." The bill would establish the framework in which the legislature could take up the issue of where its future home should be and "what that home should be like." The proposed legislation would set up through the legislative council the requirements that those municipalities with populations of over 30,000 shall be able to propose a legislative hall, with a rent set at $1 per year. The legislature would pay all the operating and maintenance costs. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that since statehood in 1959, there has been ongoing debate regarding where the capital shall be, and the bill would allow for competition between all local governments and the state, provided they meet certain criteria related to location, transportation, and fiscal capabilities. 9:39:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the current [capitol] building is antiquated and does not meet fire and safety codes. Furthermore, it is unfriendly to the public. The building was originally designed as federal office space, he added. He offered further details. He stated his belief that Alaskans deserve a building they can take pride in, that is also functional. 9:41:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said another issue is the question of where the hall should be located. He said the building should fit its backdrop. He revealed that he was a real estate developer who specialized in the building and development of office buildings. Representative Rokeberg directed attention to a copy of a letter [included in the committee packet] that was written by Lyman E. Knapp. [The letterhead is that of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education. However, "Washington D.C." has been crossed off and in it's place is, "On U.S.S. Pinta, near Ft. Wrangell June 2d 1890."] In the letter, Mr. Knapp lists the reasons for not removing the capital from Sitka to Juneau, including the remoteness of Juneau and its terrible winds. Representative Rokeberg said location is an important issue that must be resolved. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted another issue is the question of who should make the decision regarding a legislative hall. He said since the building would be the legislature's, that body should make the decision. He stated that [the legislature] needs to have the framework of the project development and the legislative council could work that out through proposals. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the bottom line is the fiscal note and what the cost to the citizens of Alaska would be. He talked about the one dollar a year payment, and indicated that the city that has the capital must pay the costs. He said his bill overcomes the biggest hurdle, which is the costs of a new capital. He indicated that both the Matanuska/Susitna (MatSu) and the Kenai Peninsula Boroughs have passed resolutions related to the bill. He said he believes there would be interest from communities, with the final decision ultimately residing with the legislature. 9:50:02 AM VICE CHAIR GATTO predicted that there would be a savings to the state in moving the capital to South Central Alaska, because there would no longer be the need to transport so many people from Anchorage and the surrounding areas to Juneau. He said he is curious to know what that difference in cost would be. If, for example, the savings would be $5 million a year, he wondered if the legislature would, in turn, appropriate that $5 million toward the leasing or construction of the building. 9:52:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said some of those numbers have been looked at but some are outdated. He said it is a key element in the rationale for relocating the capital. He said $5 million is the total cost of the legislature, most of it going to staff salaries. In terms of "the per diem differentials and the actual travel components," he said the savings are relatively small. He mentioned the cost to private citizens. Most of those in rural areas travel through Anchorage to get to Juneau, so there would be a significant savings to the public. He said it would cost more to cool down the new building, only because the capitol has no air conditioning. The issue is that there is not adequate ventilation. The net savings is not the driver to the bill. Notwithstanding that, he predicted that a new building would ultimately cost the state less. He said the current building could be "modestly remodeled," but it has "significant life safety problems." 9:56:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is his opinion that the cost of remodeling the current building is not worth it. He offered further details regarding the violations of fire codes in the current capitol, concluding that the building would have to be gutted before it could be made workable. He told the committee about a letter from a fire marshal after an inspection in 1998. Representative Rokeberg added that there is a lot of character in the building. He offered details regarding efforts that have made to improve the current capitol building. 10:00:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned about the condition of the current building and the size of certain offices. 10:02:26 AM VICE CHAIR GATTO remarked that the capitol fire alarm sounds like a car alarm, thus he did not evacuate on an occasion when it sounded. 10:04:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that a thorough inspection of the capitol be conducted, so that the people of the state could know everything that is wrong with the building. 10:05:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said legislation is not needed to do that. He suggested installing a sprinkler system. He said there is lack of duel egress, and the primary stairwell could be a death trap. 10:06:46 AM VICE CHAIR GATTO said the capitol was built in 1929, and thus has been grandfathered in and does not have to meet certain codes. However, if a major renovation were done, all those codes would have to be met. VICE CHAIR GATTO ascertained that there was no one further to testify. He said he promised Chair Seaton that he would not pass any bills in his absence. REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS responded, "If we weren't going to move any bills today, I'd just as soon be some place else. I mean, I thought that's why we came here, to move legislation." VICE CHAIR GATTO explained, "Well, by closing public testimony and having this, I think when we bring it up the next time we will be able to dispose of it in short order." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he doesn't have a problem holding the bill over. He stated his intent to prepare some amendments and asked if the public testimony could remain open. VICE CHAIR GATTO suggested that Chair Seaton could choose to reopen public testimony if he wishes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized the importance of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Representative Rokeberg. [HB 23 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|