Legislature Downscales Capitol Gains: ‘Collier Towers’ Now ‘Craven’s Cottage’

For decades, members of the state Legislature have fancied building themselves an elegant new office building near the state Capitol. Now they appear close to getting their wish.

But over the past 15 years, the construction concept has changed markedly. A grandiose proposal once derisively labeled “Collier Towers” has undergone a substantial downgrading to what now might be called “Craven’s Cottage.”

With Gov. George Deukmejian’s backing, the Legislature this year passed a bill by Sen. William A. Craven (R-Oceanside), transferring ownership of property immediately south of the Capitol from the general state government to the Legislature. Construction must await another vote, a delay designed to give the Assembly a larger voice in the project.

Craven unveiled his proposal for a $115-million, five-story structure less than a month before the end of the legislative session, even though the Senate Rules Committee had been discussing the project privately for three years. Under the plan, a 50-year-old building now occupied by the state Department of Consumer Affairs and the state Board of Equalization would be demolished.

The new building would be financed through the sale of bonds retired with savings from rent now paid for legislative staffers in private offices. Craven claims the dislocated state departments would be better off moving to low-cost space in the Sacramento suburbs.

Why does the Legislature need a new building? Lawmakers now occupy most of the old Capitol and its six-story annex. They acquired additional space by moving the state treasurer, controller and secretary of state out of the Capitol.

The rationale is the need to provide an efficient home for a rapidly growing legislative staff. At one time, part-time legislators worked at their desks in the Senate and Assembly chambers. Each lawmaker had one secretary. Committee staff worked part-time. But in the past 25 years, the Legislature has grown into a huge bureaucracy with an army of about 2,400 staff members providing administrative, legal, technical and political assistance to lawmakers.

The total legislative budget for this year exceeds $200 million--more than $1.6 million per lawmaker. Some of the highest paid aides serve primarily as political operatives for their bosses, and staff salaries run as high as $96,000 a year.

By comparison, the budget for New York’s 211 lawmakers totals $180 million--or $850,000 per legislator. The New York Legislature has a payroll of 4,700, but many employees are part-time district aides receiving small stipends.

Congress, with 535 members and 25,000 employees, this year will spend about $1.3 billion, or $2.4 million per member, on legislative activities, according to the Congressional Quarterly. But the total includes $600 million for the General Accounting Office and the non-legislative functions of the Library of Congress.

California’s legislative budget has increased about $35 million over the past two years, with much of the increase going for new employees. One of the fastest-growing of all state agencies is the Legislative Counsel Bureau, providing legal advice for lawmakers and preparing all bills. The bureau’s budget has jumped from about $16 million to $21 million in the past two years.

If the Legislature needs the staff, then it follows that it needs the office space. Craven says it makes no sense for the state to pay ever-increasing rents for employees who could be brought under one roof in a building connected to the Capitol by a tunnel. However, opponents going back to Collier’s day have argued that the construction of a big new building will merely invite the addition of more staffers at even greater cost to the taxpayers.

Assemblyman William P. Baker (R-Danville) is a leading critic. He fears further expansion of staff and a negative public reaction akin to the ill-fated congressional pay raise: “Why should the public, in the blind, expect us to approve a large investment in housing for the Legislature if we can’t tell them the costs and benefits as well as the negatives?”

Assuming the project gets final approval, construction of a new legislative office building will be at least in part a tribute to the late Sen. Randolph Collier of Siskiyou County, who launched the campaign for a new abode in the early 1960s.

Collier proposed an 18-story, twin-tower complex east of the Capitol, five blocks from the Craven site. Known as “Father of the Freeways” and the “Silver Fox of the Siskiyous,” Collier wanted the towers to stand at the east end of Capitol Park, the crowning jewel of his illustrious career.

His design guaranteed each of the 120 legislators a corner office and called for a large garage, elegant restaurant, even a swimming pool and gym. At first, Collier ran a single-handed campaign because most of his colleagues feared a negative public reaction following strong editorial criticism in some of the state’s most influential newspapers.

Collier’s break came in 1973 when the Legislature’s Seismic Safety Committee reported that the Capitol would crumble if a major earthquake hit Sacramento. Then, as head of the Senate Finance Committee, Collier struck an alliance with Assemblyman Willie Brown, now Speaker, who then chaired the Ways and Means Committee. They placed $42 million in the budget as a down payment on Collier Towers and for repairs to the Capitol so that it could be used as a museum. At the insistence of then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, a companion bill required that the project be subject to a second vote of the Legislature.

Then, Bob Moretti of Van Nuys resigned as Assembly Speaker to run for governor; a bitter fight for the job broke out between Brown and his fellow San Francisco Democrat, Leo T. McCarthy. Collier worked on Brown’s behalf, but McCarthy (now lieutenant governor) won the Speakership. One of McCarthy’s first actions was to kill Collier Towers. The $42 million--and plenty more--went into reconstruction of the Capitol, a venture now generally applauded.

Collier wanted to build a monument to provide comfort and glory to the legislative branch of government. Craven is trying to remove the romance by scaling down the structure and by eliminating fancy offices for legislators.

According to Craven, the Senate wants a relatively simple building to house lawyers, staff members and computer operations, but the Assembly hasn’t reached a consensus. “Do they want to put staff in there? Do they want to put staff as well as legislators in there? They haven’t figured it out,” Craven said.

Why doesn’t the Legislature take over the Consumer Affairs Building and simply remodel it? Craven claims the structure is obsolete and cannot be effectively modernized, especially to provide the kind of clean environment needed for mainframe computer systems.

While the Senate envisions the building mainly as a source of office space, elements of Collier’s early grand plan remain. According to some reports, the proposed structure would contain hearing rooms, underground parking, an auditorium and other facilities that would, in the words of one advocate, “meet the needs of the Legislature far into the next century.”