Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/20/1997 08:05 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 143 - REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 143, "An Act relating to the art in public places requirements for state-owned and state-leased buildings and facilities." CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Al Vezey, sponsor of HB 143, to present the bill. Number 0793 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the bill was really very simple. The co-essence of the bill was Section 3. The rest of the sections were technical requirements to implement Section 3. The bill repealed the requirements in statute for a formula program on how the state funded art in its public buildings, therefore, removing the responsibility from the legislature on how it appropriated state funds. It was not correct or proper that the legislature tried to shy away from its responsibility to appropriate. "I think if we want to appropriate money for art that we should make a deliberate appropriation. I also think that we should defer to local entities whenever possible as how they should use that money best for their communities. And a mandate in state statute is not a proper way to do state business." Number 0864 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Vezey if this would only save $34,000? A figure that was presented to him. Number 0883 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the bill repealed the Alaska statute that required 1 percent of the monies appropriated for public facilities that would go to the procurement of art through the Alaska State Council on the Arts. If $34,000 was 1 percent of what the state spent on public facilities, then it was correct. Number 0904 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Vezey if the fiscal note was zero? He stated it must cost something to administer this as a portion of the contracts. Number 0925 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied this was the third time that he had introduced this bill. He had seen numerous different fiscal notes including some zeros. "I don't see this bill as saving money. I see it as returning to the legislature the responsibility and the authority of how we appropriate money." The formula absolved the legislature from its responsibility to appropriate. Number 0979 CHAIR JAMES responded she remembered the rhetoric in opposition to the appropriation for art. In her piece of legislation three years ago she tried to set up a plan to address deferred maintenance in the state which received the same rhetoric. She asked Representative Vezey if the bill made this voluntary? Number 1027 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the bill removed the statutory requirement for the formula. It left everything else. CHAIR JAMES commented she just received information on an elementary school on Eielson Air Force Base and its art work. She tallied the individual art pieces to $97,000. She did not remember what the actual cost was for the school. She asked Representative Vezey if it said "1 percent" or did it say "a percent" for art? Was it arbitrary? Where did it say 1 percent? Number 1132 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied in Title 35 AS 35.27.020(c) it said, "at least 1 percent". There were a lot of questions involved, and HB 143 simply removed the statute to remove all of the questions. He did not know how the statute was interpreted, however. He also did not know how the legislature could abrogate its responsibility to appropriate because the formula was applied by the Administration and not by the legislature. Number 1173 CHAIR JAMES replied then the $97,000 related to a $9,700,000 school. She asked Representative Vezey when money was asked for a school was its price included at 99 percent plus the 1 percent for art? In addition, she asked what would the money be spent on if it was not spend on art? Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes." A contractor usually added 1 percent to its cost-estimate of a project. The other question did not have an answer. It was up to the legislature. Number 1228 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS commented that the state was looking at the deferred maintenance problem. He asked Representative Vezey if the law in statute also meant that 1 percent of the appropriation for deferred maintenance would have to go to art? REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes." REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Representative Vezey if the state would be taking away from its deferred maintenance and putting it into art? REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes." That was what the formula said now. It was more complex, however, because a number of public facilities that were not considered as places to put art also had to contribute to the program. Number 1274 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Representative Vezey if the art that was actually put into a building became permanent property of that location or was it moved around? REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied it depended on the appropriation and who it was to. It belonged to the entity that received the appropriation and who built the facility. Number 1300 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS commented that years ago there was discussion of putting $40 million dollars into the Homer High School which related to $400,000 in art that had to go into the facility which would have been a lot of text books. He thanked Representative Vezey for bringing the bill forward. Number 1324 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that one of the things that continued to inspire him to bring the bill forward was the fact that museums were the recipients of a large quantity of valuable art and the art had no place to go. The art could not be used as the 1 percent for art according to the regulations. Number 1358 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied one of the things that inspired him was art. In addition, the fiscal note from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities indicated that the money would go to additional amenities in the building or to higher quality construction. Furthermore, he did not think that the legislature had abrogated its responsibility of the appropriation process but rather it set up a structure of what it wanted to accomplish. The bill before the committee was the best example because if the bill passed, it reestablished a change of priority instead of abrogating its responsibility. Number 1437 CHAIR JAMES replied she did not know her position on this issue because she could argue both sides. There had been art in buildings since the beginning. The difference was whether or not it should be funded by private sources or it should be taken out of a capital expense. She would argue for art as a valid thing to have in buildings. She also agreed with Representative Vezey having been to the University of Alaska's museum that had a huge amount of fine art that no one got to see. They did want to built an extension to the museum so that more of it could be put up. It was also nice to change the art instead of having the same art in place. In addition, the art in the elementary school on Eielson Air Force Base was being created to go along with who the school was named after. Therefore, the art would not have been created if the fund had not been there. Number 1578 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied to Representative Hodgins that there was not a mandate that all deferred maintenance receive an art funding. It only had to go to public buildings. Therefore, a building that was not being used by the public would not require a art appropriation. CHAIR JAMES replied the state had a $620 million deferred maintenance problem at the last count for schools. Number 1623 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that Representative Berkowitz was correct in that the formula did not apply to roads and bridges, but it did apply to other infrastructure that the public did not use or occupy, such as sewage treatment plants and prisons. The cost went back into the formula. Number 1646 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained AS 44.27.060 stated that the art requirement was exempt when the building or facility was not designed for substantial public use which would apply to a sewer plant. Number 1667 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the statute was interpreted and the way the regulations were written so that there were many public facilities where the art would not be displayed but the cost was allocated, except for roads and bridges. The one example that he recalled looking at was a sewage treatment plant. Number 1696 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained there was 1 percent for the Anchorage waste water treatment plant. The one unintended result of all this was the Performing Art Center in Anchorage. It was all for art and it had to have 1 percent set aside for art which he felt was an unfortunate restriction and he would have loved to have spent the money on handicapped access, for example. Number 1833 JOCELYN YOUNG, Curator of Public Art, Anchorage Museum of History and Art, was the first person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. There was disinformation and misinformation about this law. The municipal ordinance followed the state statute. In addition, the museum had found that the this was one of the most public processes. There was at least one or two people from each facility, the architect, community members and members of various commissions within the municipality on the committee. Therefore, there was ownership of the art for the people living and working in the building on a day-to-day basis. She had also seen those that were not very excited about this usually embrace it after seeing how their organization could be represented in the public. She cited the art piece in the Anchorage police headquarter training center became the logo for the department adding a light touch to its serious role. In addition, the artists in the state receiving the commission did not receive a chunk of money because they had to pay for: studio rent, contractors, and electricians, for example. The money did not just go to one person. The rural school did not have a 1 percent commission, they had a 0.5 percent commission. She had also found that the public art throughout the state was considered a museum without walls because it was accessed by those that often did not have a chance to go to a museum. "It becomes there own public art in their own community or school." Number 2069 DAVID ROSENTHAL was the next person to testify via teleconference in Cordova. He was against repealing the 1 percent for art. He had done some art for the state in the past which was meaningful to him to pass on. He did not believe that by getting rid of the 1 percent for art the legislature would take care of its $600 million in deferred maintenance or provide wheelchair access. "I don't believe it's going to save any money and it has been a good thing for the state." It brought the art to people who normally did not get the chance to see it. In addition, a wide range of art was selected because of the public process. Number 2153 SCOTT HAMANN was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He supported HB 143. Art had been in public buildings from the day that they were built and by getting rid of this 1 percent for art did not mean that there would not be art. It was a continual process. However, he did not believe that there should be a blanket 1 percent. "I think that we need to sit down and look at every building that we build and decide how much money we want to spend on art and go ahead and do that." The art could come from private individuals or it could be donated. It was the responsibility of the legislature to be frugal with state money. The money could be better spent. Number 2269 VICTORIA LORD, Director, Ketchikan Arts Council, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan. She thanked Representative Vezey for bringing us together every year to reaffirm the importance of the 1 percent for art program in Alaska and for giving us the opportunity to remind the legislators that the program was of value. She disagreed with Representative James that art just belonged in museums. Art was all around, it added life and livability to the public spaces. The residents of the City and Borough of Ketchikan enjoyed fine works of public art and many were here because of the state mandate. She cited the airport, pioneers home, public health center, and public schools housed a variety of art work by a variety of artists. Ketchikan was proud of the work of its artists that had received commissions not only in Ketchikan but throughout the Northwest. She cited the names of the artists who contributed art to the new buildings that fell under the mandate. As Director of the Ketchikan Arts Council, she had witnessed the process of selecting the art work. When it was time to select the art work for the high school the process included the students. Number 2439 EMILY MOORE was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan. She was a senior at Ketchikan High School. The 1 percent for arts funding was very important. Her freshman year began in a brand new building which was nice, but it represented a sterile bathroom. The funds from the 1 percent for arts was a good program. TAPE 97-30, SIDE A Number 0018 MICHAEL OLSON, President, Seward Arts Council, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Seward. He was also a volunteer member of the arts selection committee for the new ferry. He explained the administration cost came from the 1 percent. And the formula was only calculated from state funds. He opposed HB 143. In 1975, Alaska took bold steps to recognize the importance of art by developing the 1 percent for art program. Since that time many other states had followed and looked up to us. The state of Utah was the most recent to adopt such a program. It would be ludicrous for the state to drop the ball now. The 1 percent would not go back to the General Fund because contractors factored in a 5 to 10 percent contingency for cost overruns and it was this money that the art work was derived from. If money was the sole reason for HB 143, it was a waste of precious time; there was no bang for the buck. In 1985, he worked on a project where there was a cost overrun so 1 percent could not go into the art. Other funds were raised after the fact. Number 0233 ANNIE STOKES was the first person to testify in Juneau. She also thanked Representative Vezey for bringing up this issue again because it stimulated public dialogue, and it made people really assess what was important to them. It was apparent from the comments from the committee members that there was a great deal of misinformation, confusion, and questions about the bill that no one had the answers to. She was opposed to HB 143 because it was not in the best interest of the state. It was premature as was shown through the questions. In addition, governmental policy was to bring up a problem, to investigate it, and then to act accordingly. She reiterated the bill was premature at this point because there were too many questions. Moreover, HB 143 denied the individuals that wanted to see their cultures reflected in the public. It was a public process and those involved had only said positive things statewide for the program. The artists were selected by the area. It was a competitive process with stringent procedures to go through. It also denied the children in the schools who assist with the projects and watch the process. She cited the art work in Dzantik'l Heeni Middle School in Juneau. In addition, it also denied the tourists who came to see the land and to buy art. The figures indicated that art was a viable industry that should be supported by the state just like natural resources. Number 0485 SHANNON PLANCHON, Grant Administrator, Alaska State Council on the Arts, was the next person to testify in Juneau. She was also the Percent for Art Coordinator. She distributed to the committee members a handout titled, "Percent for Art-Samples of Percent for Art Projects From Across the State." She explained Tim Wilson was not here today because he was travelling. The council was opposed to the passage of HB 143. Public art had been commissioned since the antiquities. "It was one of the important ways that we come to know and identify our cultures, our buildings, and who we are." There were over 100 percent for art programs operating in the United States: the federal government, 29 states, and scores of cities. Anchorage was the only city in Alaska that had a full-time percent for art person. At the state level the council operated without a direct administrative expense offering technical services to departments that were required to consult with the council per the statute. In 1986 the Visual Arts Coordinator position was cut from the program. The council had a strong interest in the 1 percent for art program because it served its constituents and the public. "We think it's an ideal program, fiscally conservative, while the state's budget is robust. A small percent of the capital budget is reserved for it and then when times are tough the projects are cut back." In addition, art installed became a permanent part of the building and amortized over the life of the building. The Art in Public Places Fund was a different pot of money. It was for buildings that were not used by the public. The portion that was designated for the art went to the fund to help augment art in the art banks for portable art. The fund right now was at $34,000. In conclusion, HB 143 would negatively affect its two constituencies, the public and the artists. "Public art is public pride." Number 0723 ALAN MUNRO was the next person to testify in Juneau. He was a practicing artist in Juneau. He read the following statement into the record: "Art, as painting and sculpture, has made major contributions to public life and public buildings since the time of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. We continue in that historic tradition to this day. "Now, there are certain politicians who would say: `No more!' "What is the reason? What good purpose could possibly be served by eliminating art from our daily lives? Is this an anti-art, anti- intellectual movement or is it simply naivete', due to too little opportunity to experience meaningful art. Perhaps it is purely a financial issue, fueled by contractors who would stand to profit by a little extra money designated for `nice but not necessary' art. "Supporters of the repeal say: `It is a government give away which merely supports individual artists who can not make it on their own.' This is a ridiculous argument, since any money left over after materials, hard earned wages and taxes would have to last a very long time between awards. There is no give away here, just an honest wage in return for talent, professional ability and public enrichment. We will never know how far Michelangelo would have been able to go without the financial support of the Vatican. He also had trouble with individuals in control of that funding source, over 400 years ago. "Be that as it may, there does exist a long established art selection process that very carefully selects the percent for art recipients. This ensures that , serious artists, producing quality works of art, are awarded these percent moneys. "We, of European descent, tent to isolate art from our daily lives whether we profess to appreciate it or not. Older and wiser cultures accept art as a given in their daily lives. Art provides them a dimension of societal well being they would otherwise not have. Obviously, we have a long way to go before we are as accepting or as wise. It is one of the reasons why we are gathered here today. "Madam chairwoman, I recommend we become more accepting of art. Let us continue on the centuries long journey other have made before us. Let us continue this critically important percent for art program. Let this sadly uninformed and regressive bill die in Committee." Number 0906 MIKE ANDERSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in Cordova. He was a local artist in Cordova amongst the other things he did for his community. The art created under the percent for art program added a great deal to the buildings. It also added public pride and warmth. It also allowed for the preservation of culture and the creation of art that otherwise would not have been created on speculation because of to the size of the art work. "Without these commissions the artists would be relegated to doing small enough things that would fit in a tourist package and heading out of the state." The work that he did for the percent for art project was specifically designed in relation to the durability and function of the building. Furthermore, he also had worked in the field of construction. "I know that this will not save 1 percent." Money going into the windows, for example, was far more than 1 percent. The 1 percent of the 10 percent contingency for bidding errors and necessary changes was eaten up in no time in the construction of a building. "I don't think we're going to see any change in this. We might see a little bit more spendy tile on the floor. We might see spendier doors, maybe slightly more glass. We won't hardly see it at all in the buildings." In addition, the 1 percent would not go back to the legislature. "You're not going to get the warmth of putting artists out of business. The artists that are already doing this are artists that are going to make it regardless of whether they're getting a percent for art or not." Number 1076 JAMES EVENSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He called HB 143 a bad bill because there was no better investment than money spent on art. The program was not welfare for artists, it was not just a matter of putting pretty pictures on the wall. It was a statement by the government that the art was important for the lives of the citizens. Everything that was made by the hands of man had an artistic decision. He cited cars, tools, and houses as examples. "Art is part of the fabric of our daily lives. It's just as much so as science or even the oil industry." Therefore, to eliminate the percent for art program meant diminishing the quality of life for our people in the schools and public buildings. He suggested to continue to try to improve the program for more involvement. "Please do not eliminate this program." Number 1178 CARL KRONBERG was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan. The art in public requirement was an important and positive program for the Ketchikan community. The most recent example was the placement of art in the Ketchikan High School. The school had been recently rebuilt and the art requirement made it a more cheerful place for the teachers and the students creating a better educational environment. The art requirement was also a valuable public partnership for very little money creating economic benefits for local communities in tourism, for example. Number 1267 CAROL BRYNER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She was an artist and a volunteer at the museum as well as having served on juries for the public art program in Anchorage. She travelled quite a bit and looked at how communities showed itself in its art. There was a big difference between Seattle, Washington; and Taunton, Massachusetts for example. Last year at this time she was in Italy where there were lines three hour long to see art, of which, a lot of it was public art. The bill was a shortsighted way to look at the future and what we would leave to our children and grandchildren. "The art that we have around us is incredibly important. If you look around you and see nothing but new roads and new bathrooms; it doesn't say much about our culture." She was opposed to HB 143. Number 1353 SYBIL DAVIS was the next person to testify in Juneau. She had lived in Juneau for a long time. She was also a parent and a person who had been actively involved in the arts and who appreciated aesthetics. She cited a story when she was seasick on a missionary trip and the skipper suggested that she focus on the horizon to help her seasickness. She suggested that the committee members focus on the horizon now to realize this was something that would be left long after they were gone. Art was a positive impact on the environment, it was the culture, it reflected the people, and 1 percent was not much. If the bill was to pass and the money was rescinded, it would not go into the capital budget, it would not get what the committee members were seeking. She was opposed to the bill. Number 1421 LYNETTE TURNER, President, Arts for a Healthy Alaska (AHA), was the next person to testify in Juneau. The AHA was a statewide arts advocacy organization. The AHA opposed HB 143 because both the public and the artists benefitted greatly from the program. The schools and universities would be negatively impacted because so many of the projects were done there. In addition to decreasing the degree of exposure that the youth would have, it would also affect artist's employment. "To walk through a public building and have the opportunity to be exposed to various types of art can be a rewarding experience and can have a profound affect." In the words of playwright, Thornton Wilder, "We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures." The arts were a treasure that should be shared. Please support the 1 percent for art program. Number 1480 JENANN KIRCHMEIER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Cordova. She was a practicing artist in Cordova. She had not been a part of the program but was opposed to eliminating the percent for art because she felt it was a form of bankruptcy to look at art in this way when it was such a life enhancing form. She looked forward to buildings going up so that she could see what would happen in them. In addition, she had seen first hand in the villages how the children responded to the art in their schools. She was opposed to eliminating the 1 percent for art program.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|