Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/03/2003 08:03 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 215-REPEAL ONE PERCENT FOR ART [Contains brief mention of HB 134] CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 215, "An Act repealing statutes that relate to art works in public buildings and facilities and that require a set percentage of construction costs to be spent on art." Number 0991 REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 215, told the committee the bill was not new, noting that his "colleague from District 20" probably had a previous opportunity to vote on some permutation of this bill in the past. He indicated that he was the beneficiary of a considerable amount of research on this issue that had been done by [former] Representative [Mark] Hanley. Representative Stoltze said that he would be approaching the merits of the 1 percent for art from the fiscal rather than the aesthetic perspective. Number 0833 REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said that with more school construction and more new projects, each dollar would need to be spent more intelligently by weighing all of the costs involved. He referred to his presentation a few days ago of [HB 134], "a prison bill," during which he had asked the Department of Corrections [how much] 1 percent [for] art would amount to on the "Sutton proportion" [a proposed prison facility under HB 134]. He was given the estimated amount of $1.3 million, which he said he found to be staggering. He said that Representative Holm was concerned about the cost of public facilities. He added, "That really brought that to home, that's why I asked him that question." Regarding prisons, he said, given the choice, he'd rather allocate towards officer safety or more beds. He said he expected that there would be quite a bit of testimony on HB 215, adding that he respects a divergence of opinion and also that he comes from a family involved in the arts, with his grandmother [Margaret G. Mielke] being the first poet laureate [of Alaska]. Number 0656 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Stoltz to explain the zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that it was probably because the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) didn't have any major facilities being constructed this year. He said that obviously there was a cost involved, but this was difficult to quantify. He told the committee that getting information from state agencies can be difficult and that "this probably hasn't been the best-run program that the state's ever put out." He noted that there have been innumerable audits. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned that the fiscal note goes through [2009], shows a zero amount, and does not include any analysis. Number 0509 BARBARA BITNEY, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State Legislature, said it was very difficult to obtain the funding analysis. She explained this was because in 1975 all construction projects were under [DOT&PF] and were gradually released so that eventually, for example, responsibilities for school construction projects were transferred from DOT&PF to [the Department of Education and Early Development]. She said there are other instances such as the Alaska Court System, wherein policies and procedures have been developed similar to DOT&PF's. With this being split out among agencies, one source doesn't have the information as to cost savings. She said that DOT&PF can authorize the purchase of art during the construction phase. She said that the costs aren't being tracked, so it is not easy to obtain information in a simple format. Number 0423 MS. BITNEY referred to an audit of January 4, 1999, by the Legislative Audit Division explaining that there are 13 Department of Law memorandums detailing the discussion on what is and what is not applicable. Number 0400 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if DOT&PF could develop a fiscal note that would reflect the fiscal impact, if it were given more time to do so. Number 0352 MS. BITNEY replied that she didn't know the answer to that question. She added that after attempting to gather information for several weeks, all she ended up with was the art in public places fund, and instead of people depositing money into the fund and then purchasing art, it was done "directly at construction"; therefore, the fund doesn't accurately reflect the percentage of money being spent. Number 0330 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to an earlier conversation with Representative Stoltze in which it was intimated that the percentage was 1 percent for state projects but less than that for other projects within the state. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he believed it was in the late 1970s that there was a statutory change for schools in rural Alaska in which the percentage was reduced to 0.5 percent. He said this isn't new - value judgments have been made in the past, depending upon such things as intrinsic value or construction costs. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked why the number used was 1 percent. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE surmised that it mirrored a federal program and said he suspected it was modeled after federal law. Number 0170 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if it made sense to have a requirement without having a way to audit, track, or to ensure accountability. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that this was a multi-committee, bicameral process and that this may evolve to a lesser percentage. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM suggested that whether the institution involved was a jail or a school would indicate a different necessity for art. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE agreed that these were valid points to consider. Number 0079 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected that this only relates to art in public places, so regarding prison facilities, it would not be art within the entire institution, it would just be within the public sections of that facility. It would not go to areas like bridges or sewer facilities but just to public facilities. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE indicated that the prisons are included, noting that the commissioner is struggling to incorporate the art costs into construction. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the audit could be made available. The committee took an at-ease from 9:38 a.m. to 9:41 a.m. TAPE 03-37, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to page 2, Section 3 of the bill, which allows the construction of memorials to Alaska veterans. He said, "I'm just wondering, if we're doing away [with] 1 percent [for] art, should we do away with the construction of memorials [to Alaska veterans]?" He told Representative Stoltz that the question is more or less rhetorical. Number 0076 REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ responded that there certainly isn't a mandate "by percentage for those." He said he thinks that "this actually refers to the 1 percent [for] art not applying to that." He opined that the way the 1 percent [for] art has been structured through a committee process; the committee wouldn't want to create that clash between the arts community and the veterans community. He said that Representative Gruenberg probably remembers the visual arts center in Anchorage, Alaska. He added, "It's probably very intelligent that those that proceeded us didn't apply the 1 percent [for] art to the veterans' memorial and probably prevented a lot of political animosity." Number 0151 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that there are so many legal opinions because the art projects are spread out among "the departments," and when "they did this audit," legal opinions [were necessary for each project]. Number 0266 CHARLOTTE FOX, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA), stated that she thinks that when the legislation was written in 1975, it was pretty clear that the state took its responsibility seriously to ensure that all Alaskans have access to the arts. She said that she likes to think of art in public places as "art in surprising places," because it is outside of the normal galleries and museums. MS. FOX said that Representative Stoltz had previously stated a good point - an issue that the people who work at "the agency" struggle with - that there's really no clear method of how the art in public places fund works. The two statutes that deal with "percent for art" and "art in public places" were well- intentioned, but didn't give anyone real authority to "oversee the program or have any enforcements." MS. FOX stated that [ASCA] is concerned and interested that the program be a success, but has not been given any authority to make sure that 1 percent for art is always set aside, for example. She said that a lot of times [ASCA] doesn't even know that a project is going on. She said that she agrees and that the audit shows that something needs to be done, but she doesn't want [the program] abolished, because it's very important. She told committee members that she thinks they will hear [through] other testimony that the program is vital, provides jobs to Alaskans, and, basically, doesn't cost the State of Alaska any money out of its operating budget. She added, "So, it's a win- win program," and it needs to be operated efficiently. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ thanked Ms. Fox for the help she has given to him and his staff. Number 0583 SYBIL DAVIS, Executive Director, Juneau Arts & Humanities Council (JAHC), told the committee that she has been a resident of Alaska since statehood and is a concerned citizen. She continued as follows: What struck me first and foremost is that ... because they have to meet Alaska standards in art, [the state requires] our Alaskan students to develop an understanding and appreciation of art, and yet House Bill 215 would eliminate a program that feeds right into that. MS. DAVIS opined that Alaska is a "magnificently beautiful" state. Furthermore, she stated that it is critical that the imprint and physical mark that is made in the state should be esthetic. She said, "Our environment is extremely critical." She told the committee that the first thing she noticed when she walked into the committee room was its "colorful backdrop" [referring to a textile "northern lights" piece, created by the Auke Bay Elementary students]. MS. DAVIS told the committee that Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman's staff came into the Juneau Arts & Humanities Council office in need of art for their walls and was able to borrow art from the council. She said, "It just reinforces how critically important our environment is. What we live with, what we see every day, and what we nourish our students with is critical." Number 0737 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ shared a comment he had received from an artist. He said, "Apparently, someone had asked [Winston] Churchill why they were continuing funding for the arts during the war, and [Mr. Churchill] said, 'That's what we're fighting for'." Number 0815 JUNE ROGERS, Director, Fairbanks Art Association (FAA), told the committee that she agrees with the previously stated points made by both Ms. Davis and Ms. Fox. She indicated the bill's fiscal intent language stating that other needs more important than the 1 percent for art expenditure are being considered. She stated that she takes exception to that. MS. ROGERS said that she finds that the best value is gained from working with programs that address youth and the health of communities, to make certain that jails are less filled, rather than more filled. She said she hopes that youth who are in [juvenile detention] facilities have access to art materials, "so that we can continue to try to reach them, to address their relationship to the community in a way that's most positive for all of us." MS. ROGERS said that FAA works with the school district, the state arts council, and [other] organizations in the state. She mentioned a recent arts conference attended by representatives from major arts organizations. She told the committee that she spoke at length with a woman from Seldovia, [Alaska], who is working desperately to address problems of "a variety of community ills through the arts," such as alcoholism. She stated that art in public places is "the one way that can address this across the board for all (indisc.)." She indicated working in a positive way to address the issues. Number 1002 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM thanked Ms. Rogers for all the work that she's done for the arts community in Fairbanks, Alaska. Number 1000 MS. ROGERS mentioned libraries. She stated that she thinks public art is a public museum. Every community in the state does not have the funds for a museum, and the 1 percent for art projects provide public access to art. She referred to a previously stated point made by Ms. Fox that this doesn't save money, but just reallocates money. She said, "I don't think that there is a possibility of finding a better value for those dollars." Number 1120 KENNETH DeROUX told the committee that he is an artist and a resident of Juneau, Alaska. He noted that he created one piece of public art for the state in the 1980s, as well as participated on "a number of panels, back in the 1980s, when the program had more life to it." He said that he is a curator at the Alaska State Museum, [Juneau]; however, he is on leave and testifying on behalf of himself. MR. DeROUX said that [the issues surrounding] the bill have been discussed repeatedly, back in the 1980s. He stated his belief that the 1 percent for art program is a model of the federal 1 percent for art program. Art in public places is a feature of civilized countries all over the world. Mr. DeRoux said that probably one of the more notable federal programs was the WPA program [part of the U.S. Work Progress Administration Federal Writers' Project and Historical Records Survey] back in the 1930s, which [not only] made work for artists, but also created beautiful works of art throughout the country, which are still appreciated today. Number 1218 MR. DeROUX noted two issues: the cost of the program, and the quality of life issue. Regarding the cost of the program, he said that he thinks the public frequently perceives the 1 percent as [an additional cost] to construction programs. He stated that it is 1 percent of the construction cost, which is "arrived at independently." He explained that the 1 percent for art is built into the project as a feature of it, but doesn't really detract from the specifications of that project. The cost of a [construction] project can change significantly, he said, depending on who is doing the specs. Mr. DeRoux said that a small project is currently underway at the [Alaska State] Museum. He said, "If somebody is not watch-dogging every step of the way, there's a lot of money in any given project that can go into one thing or another thing." Number 1337 MR. DeROUX said he knows that (DOT&PF) does not like to administer the program, [because] it is not a familiar area and is, perhaps, extra work that can create administrative costs within personnel budgets. He said that the arts council would like to see the program administered better, but frequently does not have the money to "watch-dog it." Number 1390 MR. DeROUX stated his belief that the money goes into a fund that can be used to purchase artwork for the state art bank, which then can be used in public buildings. He noted that the art bank is another related program. He told the committee members that if they saw what is in the art bank and where it is [displayed], they would be impressed at how well Alaska does at "getting its art around and really dressing up its buildings." Number 1411 MR. DeROUX returned to the quality of life issue. He told the committee that he had attended a conference in Anchorage, Alaska. The keynote speaker was a school administrator from an inner city district in a big East Coast city who testified to the importance of the environment of schools. Mr. DeRoux said that the speaker talked about a school in an industrial zone that was designed by a good architect and cost more money than normal, in order to be a facility that the students could be proud of. The students were proud of the school and vandalism dropped dramatically. Furthermore, the school became a magnate for events and, as more people used the school, the neighborhood blossomed as well. Mr. DeRoux posited that the end result was because of the concern for the quality of the environment. Number 1509 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. DeRoux to explain how 1 percent of the construction cost is not an additional cost to the project. MR. DeROUX stated that it is his understanding that [the 1 percent] does not actually increase the cost of the project. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated the 1 percent is built in; however, if there was no 1 percent, wouldn't that make the cost of the project 1 percent less? MR. DeROUX said that he does not "cost out" projects and therefore does not understand the process completely. In response to a follow-up question by Representative Lynn, he suggested that [DOT&PF] could perhaps explain the issue. Number 1610 JOCELYN YOUNG, Curator, 1 percent for art program in Anchorage, Alaska, testifying as a private citizen, stated that the municipality [of Anchorage] passed its own ordinance in 1978, after the state law was passed in 1975, because major construction projects were beginning and Anchorage wanted to have control over the funds and make decisions on a very local level. The people who work in the buildings are the ones who are making the decisions about the artwork, she said; therefore, the artwork chosen will be different from place to place. MS. YOUNG noted that Alaska was the tenth state in the country to pass a 1 percent for art statute, and now there are hundreds of programs throughout the country, supporting the addition of artwork for private and public buildings. The program in Alaska is seen as one of the best in the country, she said. Artists within the state, and those who have lived in Alaska previously, are proud to claim that they have work in the collection, she said. MS. YOUNG said that, in Anchorage, 1 percent is the cost set aside for the artwork in its buildings. When projects are bid upon, she said, 15-20 percent of the budget is usually for contingency alone. The 1 percent funds would not translate into better building material if the program was no longer in existence; it wouldn't be used for stronger structural support or better flooring, for example, because there are codes in place that "already address these things." Ms. Young said that those funds would be lost to the artists and to the structures, and would be reabsorbed into the construction of the project. MS. YOUNG said that the artists benefit from the challenge of creating designs and projects "at this scale." She said, "This is a way to treat our artists in our state and community like professionals, on a par with architects and designers and other project personnel." She stated that 1 percent may look like a large amount of money, but a lot of artists are not making very much money on these projects. She explained that there are a lot of expenses that go into building public art. Many artists, she said, "do this" because they love to see their artwork out there for the general public to enjoy, and they want to enhance the buildings. MS. YOUNG noted that she is very familiar with the state program, because the program in Anchorage, Alaska was modeled after it. She told the committee that she hopes it finds lots of reasons to support public art and "few reasons to support HB 215." Number 1842 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Ms. Young is aware of any other states that have chosen to balance their budgets by repealing "this kind of a program." MS. YOUNG answered no. She said she has been hearing that more codes are being passed in municipalities [within other] states that require private development to also include public art. Number 1888 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to an article from the Homer Daily News that speaks to [the issue of public art] and addresses the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts (ACPA), in Anchorage, Alaska, regarding ACPA's use of 1 percent [for] art money towards design elements of the carpets, railings, and lighting. He asked if elements [that are incorporated into the building, such as carpets] count as those that don't necessarily increase the cost of the project by 1 percent. MS. YOUNG explained that, for example, an artist is selected out of proposals submitted to develop a design for the upholstery in one of the theatres, and is paid a nominal design fee of, perhaps, $5,000 to oversee "the running of the mill of ... their design and installation." The upholstery was going to be milled anyway, she said, "so this is a way to stretch the 1 percent for art dollars." Number 1990 DUKE RUSSELL testified that he is a veteran artist and a "super voter" who has lived in [Anchorage] for over 30 years. He said, "I can't help but think this is kind of a 'Nimbus' thing, that it's more not liking some of the products of this project." He opined that the benefits of the 1 percent for art go far beyond the obvious. He said its "soul food"; it's "contagious creativity." He explained that people spur ideas off of ideas. He said, "The art and the artists are not just subcontractors laying pipe." He stated that the presence of public art is a unique component of the city that delineates it from any other place. He mentioned imagining Chicago having problems with its Picassos, or its large public art. He said that [Chicago] is certainly "a model for us all." MR. RUSSELL said [Anchorage] is suffering from homogenization of the Outside - the franchises and the "super stores." He said, "Don't further impact this blight by rescinding the 1 percent for the arts." He said that he has lived "here" for his entire adult life and has never "experienced the level of so much spastic legislation." Mr. Russell expressed his dissatisfaction with the current administration. In response to a remark by Chair Weyhrauch, he said that [the legislature] is [also] trying to save money and "all it takes is income tax." He said the ideas [of the legislature] don't make sense or reflect the values of Alaskans and that he expects more from [the legislature]. Number 2120 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "Well, we expect a lot from ourselves, Mr. Russell." [HB 215 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|