A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying using dedicated funds in the Capitol building fund to build a legislative office building.
Summary
SCR 4024 is a concurrent resolution directing Legislative Management to study whether dedicated money in the Capitol building fund should be used to build a legislative office building. The resolution lays out the historical basis for the fund, noting that it was created at statehood and later expanded in scope, and argues that the Capitol’s legislative facilities are outdated, undersized, and lacking in modern safety and technology features.
The resolution also frames the proposal as part of broader Capitol campus planning. It points to the need for better committee rooms, office space for legislators and staff, safer parking and access, and the possibility of combining a parking structure with new office and meeting space. It further suggests that a new building could allow some executive branch agencies now leasing off-site space to relocate to the Capitol grounds, potentially reducing lease costs and improving public access.
Impact
SCR 4024 does not itself change statutory law or appropriate money; it creates a study directive for Legislative Management and asks for recommendations and any implementing legislation for the 70th Legislative Assembly. Its practical effect is to advance consideration of using the Capitol building fund for a legislative office building and to keep open the possibility of future legislation authorizing that use of dedicated funds for Capitol-area construction.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the resolution had meaningful support but was not unanimous, passing the House on second reading by a 50-42 vote. The bill text itself presents a strong institutional case for modernization, safety, and long-term planning, indicating that supporters viewed the project as necessary to preserve the Legislature’s functioning and constitutional role. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded vote shows the proposal was somewhat divisive rather than broadly consensus-driven.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the use of dedicated Capitol building fund dollars for a new legislative office building, especially given the fund’s original purpose and its prior use for other Capitol-related projects. Opponents may question whether the state should commit dedicated funds to a new building when the Capitol already has competing needs, or whether the project should be prioritized over other public spending. Supporters, by contrast, emphasize inadequate meeting space, safety concerns, technology limitations, and the potential savings from reducing leased office space.