Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/24/2003 08:06 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 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 2390 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 215, Version 23- LS0605\D, Kurtz, 4/23/03, as the working document. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. Number 2340 CHARLOTTE FOX, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA), noted that she appreciates that Representative Stoltze has come a long way, from the initial bill that repealed the statute, to Version D, which, in many ways, makes the process better. Ms. Fox informed the committee that since this original statute was passed 25 years ago, [ASCA] has struggled with the following two conflicting statutes: the "art in public places" statute and the "one percent for art" statute. Those two statutes have never worked together and the two still don't quite work together in Version D. Version D doesn't include a mechanism by which ASCA has the authorization to expend the funds. However, Ms. Fox expressed her pleasure that Version D provides ASCA the authority to run the program. Furthermore, Version D sets aside money for maintenance. Still, Ms. Fox said she wasn't sure that ASCA is ready to give its wholehearted support to Version D because it hasn't had the opportunity to thoroughly review it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the ASCA's authority to manage the program is found in Section 3 of Version D. MS. FOX pointed out that Version D refers to two statutes, AS 44.27 and AS 35.27. She explained that the problem has been that for projects under $250,000, the state department doing the construction has the ability to deposit the money into ASCA's "art in public places" fund. Currently, ASCA is authorized to expend $75,000 a year on art for the Contemporary Art Bank. The problem is that if 5 percent of the total 1 percent is put into that fund for maintenance, there is no idea how much money that will be. Therefore, it could amount to more than ASCA's authorization. MS. FOX, in response to Representative Gruenberg, specified that [Version D] does provide ASCA the authority. However, she wasn't clear of the difference this legislation would create and thus she isn't very comfortable with Version D at this time. Ms. Fox noted that this program has been confusing for the last 25 years and the desire is for it to be a good program that benefits the state. Number 2659 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, line 15, which specifies that the 5 percent is to be used to meet future maintenance needs of art works. He asked if the term "maintenance" is sufficiently broad to encompass anything that might occur. MS. FOX answered that she believes so. She noted that ASCA can't continually maintain all the artwork around the state, although it can be repaired [when necessary]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed a situation in which the fund grows and asked if ASCA might want to use those additional funds to acquire additional art. MS. FOX said that acquiring additional art is part of what the art in public places fund is for. She said she wanted to be sure that under Version D, if 5 percent of the [fund] goes toward maintenance, then the [monies generated by] other provisions of the statute - [assuming that the project] is under $250,000 or the building isn't of substantial public use - are placed into the fund to purchase art. Number 2754 BARBARA BITNEY, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Representative Stoltze, the sponsor of HB 215. Ms. Bitney explained the changes encompassed in Version D. Section 1 limits the percent for art to the first $10 million of total construction costs and to .5 percent thereafter. The same reduction was made for rural schools: .5 percent for the first $10 million for construction and a .25 percent thereafter. She explained that the intention with Section 1 is to set aside 5 percent in order to maintain the art that was being purchased. The funds would be monitored by ASCA. Therefore, when it was noticed that artwork is deteriorating, then there would need to be a request for funds from the ASCA. MS. BITNEY explained that Section 2 intends to strengthen the existing statute for choosing Alaskan artists. Although she understood that has been the focus, some of the larger artwork requires bringing up an artist from the Lower 48 to do it. Therefore, the [sponsor] didn't want to completely restrict it. Section 3 ensures consistency in the identification, monitoring, and maintenance. Ms. Bitney noted that every agency manages this differently and thus having ASCA provide the information for the ongoing construction and the percentage for the art and the inventory to the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit is an appropriate control. Section 4 exempts correctional facilities and strengthens the language [specifying that] "buildings not subject to substantial use" wouldn't be subject to the "one percent for art" program. Section 5 specifies that ["state funding" means] general funds or general obligation bonds and the [program] wouldn't apply to federal funds any longer, save construction projects that are less than $250,000 which would continue to require a deposit to the "art in public places" fund. Section 6 allows ASCA to use the "art in public places" fund for maintenance of the artwork. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the state builds or maintains buildings outside the state. MS. BITNEY said that she would have to check on that. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed attention to Section 4, paragraph (1)(B)(iii), which refers to "buildings that are not subject to substantial public use". He pointed out that [in Section 4, paragraph (1)(A)(ii),] the language "designed for substantial public use" was used. He inquired as to the difference in language. MS. BITNEY answered that she would have to check on that also. TAPE 03-43, SIDE B CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to Section 8. He asked if, for example, a high school, museum, or facility built with bond sales would have art in it. MS. BITNEY said that the language means to say that those facilities built with the funds from bond sales would have art in them. Ms. Bitney agreed with Chair Weyhrauch that those projects approved by the voters in November would be enhanced by art under the existing program or this revised program. Number 2949 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related his observation that Version D appears to be almost completely different than the original. He inquired as to how and why Version D was developed. MS. BITNEY answered that [Version D] is a compromise, reducing it by making it apply to the first $10 million for a construction project and .5 percent thereafter. The intent was also to make the monitoring and maintenance of the art work better as well. Ms. Bitney agreed with Chair Weyhrauch that there was also the intent to manage the funds. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to how much money is saved under Version D as compared to the original legislation. He then posed the question in reverse by asking how much more money is being spent under Version D versus the original version. MS. BITNEY responded that she didn't have an exact figure. She related that the intent was to have significant savings, but [the sponsor] realized that communities are supportive of art. Ms. Bitney indicated agreement that not as much money would be saved under Version D as under the original legislation. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted his support of art. However, he said he wasn't sure that the public should pay for this during a time of fiscal strife in the state. Number 2825 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that per the language in Section 8, the general obligation bonds approved by voters on or after July 1, 2003, would fall under the new program while anything that was passed under the last general obligation bond would fall under the old program. This language doesn't speak about expenditures of general obligation bond money for projects but rather to when the bonds are approved. MS. BITNEY agreed with Representative Seaton's understanding. With regard to Chair Weyhrauch's earlier question about bonds approved in November 2002, Ms. Bitney corrected her earlier answer by saying that those bonds wouldn't apply under this act. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to why one wouldn't want to make this program apply to the bond issues passed in November [2002]. MS. BITNEY answered that a date viewed as a good starting date was chosen. However, a different starting date could be chosen, she said. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH interjected that the sponsor and Representative Lynn should discuss that and bring something back to the next hearing. Additionally, he requested that Ms. Bitney check into the "not subject to" language in Section 4. He further requested that Ms. Fox work with the sponsor to have her concerns addressed. He announced that he wanted to hold HB 215 over. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that there should be a fiscal note and he indicated that he would like to have a fiscal note prepared for the original legislation and Version D. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reminded committee members that cave men created public art with their own funds. Representative Berkowitz pointed out that there is a distinction between construction, generally, and rural school construction and thus he inquired as to what rural means. MS. BITNEY said that rural can be interpreted differently and thus she offered to review it. Number 2600 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ [indicated a desire to] propose a conceptual amendment that would delete the terms "rural school facility" and the disparate funding that goes to rural school facilities because he believes it to be problematic in many ways. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that would be taken under advisement. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that there needs to be a bright-line rule specifying the difference between urban and rural, which brings in the specter of subsistence debate. If the term rural is eliminated, then this problem could be avoided. Furthermore, he inquired as to why urban schools are given one percent for art while rural schools receive one-half percent for art. Such a disparate treatment would seem unconstitutional. MS. BITNEY answered that she believes it has to do with the construction costs and the increase [in the cost] of flying. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH requested that Representative Berkowitz provide his conceptual amendment to the committee and the sponsor in writing so that it could benefit from the sponsor's input and committee debate. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed the need for a tighter title. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that this issue was hotly contested in 1987 when there [was a proposal] to eliminate the entire program. He recalled that there was contention over [obtaining art work] only from Alaskan artists. At the time, the House resisted it. However, he said he wasn't going to resist it this time because this program will provide jobs. Therefore, Representative Gruenberg expressed the need to view the program with regard to the economics as well as the inherent value of the art. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that he hadn't considered that artists would be employed by this and it's a valid point. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM highlighted that art can mean many different things, including landscaping and painting buildings. Representative Holm turned to the rural versus urban issue and related his belief that sometimes a parochial view is taken. He said if the desire is to be inclusive rather than divisive, perhaps the distinctions shouldn't be made, regardless of the cost. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the term rural, regarding school facilities, should include schools in regional education attendance areas (REAAs) because schools in a REAA have a different funding mechanism. For the REAA districts, 100 percent of the school costs are being funded, whereas with the nonrural settings, [the state] is reimbursing a portion of the bonding. Therefore, there is a difference in the amount of state money going in to the two different types of facilities. He requested a fiscal note or analysis of the aforementioned. Although he said there may be some justification for this distinction, he proposed referring to those schools as those that are 100 percent funded by state funds rather than using the term rural. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that such language would address the emotional aspects of the issue. Number 2197 RUTH SANDVIK informed the committee that she joined the Petersburg Arts Council when it began 30 years ago. She said, "My heart is with the fine job that Alaska has done so far." Anything that can be done to retain the [current funding level] will be appreciated, she indicated. She specified that she didn't want the art program to become anything less than it is now. Number 2149 PAULINE LEE, Petersburg Arts Council, noted that she was the chair of the ASCA when the original legislation [first established] the ASCA. Ms. Lee turned to Version D and noted that the title is cumbersome and unclear and thus she suggested a more concise title. She didn't believe there should be a $10,000,000 cap before funding begins and thus she suggested retaining the original language. She indicated agreement with the earlier stated concerns regarding the use of the language "rural." The reasons for the differences in the amount of funding should be clearly stated, she said. Ms. Lee directed attention to the language on page 1, line 14, and recommended establishing a cap on the amount of the fund and any money over the cap should be designated for future or additional works of art. MS. LEE moved on to the language "who are residents of the state under AS 01.10.055" on page 2, lines 6-7. When this law was originally passed, there were numerous problems with attempting to restrict who will receive commission. The guiding principle has been to obtain the very best works of art and hopefully those will be presented by Alaskan artists. Quality was the issue, she said. With regard to the proposed Sec. 35.27.022 on page 2, line 9, Ms. Lee said she wondered whether it's redundant with what the ASCA is presently doing. Ms. Lee concluded by relating that the value of public works of art is difficult to estimate. However, studies show the great value of public works of art, especially economic value, and thus that should be considered, she said. Number 1829 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that the legislature is trying to do good things for the public and hard work has been done to make the legislation satisfactory for everyone involved. He announced that HB 215 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|