Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/01/2003 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- 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 1464 BARBARA BITNEY, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 215, Representative Stoltze. She explained that the sponsor has been working with committee members and the Alaska State Council on the Arts to try to make the changes requested at the last hearing on HB 215. Ms. Bitney pointed out that one of the changes encompassed in [the committee substitute (CS)] is a tighter title. Another change can be found on page 2, line 3, where language that clarified the 5 percent set aside for maintenance would come from the 1 percent for art program. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 215, Version 23- LS0605\H, Kurtz, 4/30/03, as the working document. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. MS. BITNEY returned to her review of the changes encompassed in Version H. She directed attention to page 2, lines 7-11, and said: It's for the 1 percent applying to projects under $250,000 or not subject to substantial public use. Requiring a 1 percent deposit in the Art in Public Places fund. MS. BITNEY pointed out that on page 3, lines 1-2, is a change that merely requires that photo identification be added to the list of monitoring. On page 4, lines 1-3, the change clarifies that the original total construction costs doesn't include cost overruns. Basically, this simplifies the monitoring and applicability of the statute. On page 4, line 31 through page 5, lines 1-4, the change again clarifies that the 5 percent for maintenance is coming from the 1 percent for art program. Number 1729 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to the definition of "construction cost" in Section 6 and asked if it includes total costs, including federal funds, donated funds, (indisc.), or state appropriated funds. If so, he asked if it also includes state (indisc.). MS. BITNEY answered that the specifics that the sponsor has been working with have been strictly general funds and general obligation bonds. Number 1810 KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, informed the committee that she is the drafter of HB 215. In response to Representative Gruenberg's question regarding whether this definition of "construction cost" is limited to state funding and exclusive of federal funding, Ms. Kurtz pointed out that the definition of state funding is specified in Section 7 where the language discusses the appropriation of state funds by the legislature as well as general obligation bond proceeds. Therefore, Ms. Kurtz asked if that would cover [Representative Gruenberg's concerns]. She explained that the specific reference to state funds carries the intention [that "construction cost" is limited to state funds]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his belief [Section 7] would cover his [concerns]; however, he emphasized the need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. He then turned attention to page 4, lines 29-30, which he characterized as ambiguous. He asked if this language is specifying that the money deposited in the art in public places fund doesn't lapse in a particular year or that it never lapses. REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as the sponsor of HB 215. He related that his intent was to have continuity and not be subject to reappropriation and lapsing [agreements]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if this is a fund that will be project-specific or will it be one fund. If it's project- specific, then presumably at the end of the project the fund would end. However, if it's a general accounting fund, then it wouldn't go away. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE clarified that it's not intended to be project-specific. He explained that some projects won't ever need maintenance and might help those projects that do require maintenance. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the language would be more clear if on page 4, lines 29-30, after "lapse", a "," was inserted and "at the end of a fiscal year" was deleted. MS. KURTZ remarked that such a change could be made. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that this is all subject to appropriation, and therefore he suggested inserting a period after "lapse". MS. KURTZ said that she wouldn't take out the language "unless otherwise provided by an appropriation." due to the nature of the fund and its structure. This is an existing fund and the change is to the lapse state. Arguably, the lapse state isn't changing because there is the issue of the funds getting into the fund as an implied term of the appropriation of capital funds. Therefore, because this fund is related to capital appropriations, it's important to keep the link to the original capital appropriation. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his suggestion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt the following amendment: Page 4, lines 29-30, after "lapse": Insert "," Delete "at the end of a fiscal year" Number 2170 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is any lapse that doesn't occur at the end of the fiscal year. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the language was ambiguous because of the use of "a" before "fiscal year". Normally, [funds] don't lapse until five years after being appropriated. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that these are construction projects that don't end on a fiscal year basis. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that the lapse is a statutory lapse that runs from the date of the appropriation, not the completion of the project. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE pledged to review this in the House Finance Committee where much more expertise in this area is available. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his amendment. Number 2277 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt [Amendment 1], as follows: Page 1, lines 6-7: Delete "or, in the case of a rural school facility, at least one-half of one percent" Page 1, lines 9-10: Delete ", or in the case of a rural school facility, one-quarter of one percent" REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the aforementioned isn't an issue he cares about. He noted that the one-half percent language was inserted by rural Democratic legislators back in the 1970s. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2332 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 215, Version 23- LS0605\H, Kurtz, 4/30/03, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that at this time he would turn to public testimony before the motion is completed. Number 2385 JOCELYN YOUNG, Curator, 1 percent for art program in Anchorage, informed the committee that she had just received a copy of Version H. Ms. Young commended most of the additions to the legislation because she believes they clarify some aspects and authority of the program. However, the caps placed in the legislation are complicated and, in some ways, seem to defeat the purpose of the program. She suggested that the cap could be done on a case-by-case basis. For example, the 1 percent for art budget for a large construction project is generally for a project such as an airport, which would have extensive corridors where art work is needed. With regard to working on a corrections institute, Ms. Young related her experience with the public art in the Anchorage jail. She explained that those who really use the facility daily are employees and those employees have often commented on their enjoyment of the art in the staff and public areas of the facility. She highlighted that the program used its own formulas and created a partial exemption for the Anchorage jail and thus artwork was only placed in public and staff areas. Ms. Young viewed the aforementioned use of good sense as a better approach to the project. MS. YOUNG recalled that at the last hearing there was discussion of changing AS 35.27.020(c) from "rural school facility" to the correct term. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH advised witnesses that HB 215 will be heard in the House Finance Committee where issues of concern that haven't been addressed in the CS from this committee could be brought up. MS. YOUNG continued by pointing out that the language in the legislation referring to the commissioner may need some work due to the changes in the state's procurement code, which allows various commissioners responsibility over their own construction of facilities. She suggested that perhaps the aforementioned is an area in which the authority could go the Alaska State Council on the Arts. Number 2629 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Ms. Young's concern regarding the references to the commissioner highlighted page 2, line 26, of Version H. He also highlighted the language on page 4, lines 25-28. MS. BITNEY commented that one of the ways in which the [1 percent for art program] was strengthened was by requiring it to report to the Alaska State Council on the Arts for the funding, artwork, and location. With regard to the reference to the commissioner, Ms. Bitney agreed that each commissioner has control, however she pointed out that the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has the expertise in building and thus [the sponsor] likes [the current construct]. She noted that [Ms. Jocelyn's notion] was discussed during work on this CS, but it would require further scrutiny. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM related his belief that the reference to [the commissioner of DOT&PF] has to do with the architectural cleanliness of a project. Number 2724 MIKE ANDERSON, Cordova Visual Artists, said that he likes a lot of what Version H does. JOAN JACKSON, sculptor, expressed her desire for the 1 percent for art program to be run under the Alaska State Council on the Arts because she has seen schools and public buildings that have "twitched" out of putting in artwork. She said she didn't believe the aforementioned would happen if the program was under the Alaska State Council on the Arts. She viewed the other changes to the legislation as improvements. ALYSSA KLEISSLER, Cordova Arts & Pageants, said that she likes the changes encompassed in Version H and is happy that the legislation is no longer a repeal of the program. Number 2865 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon determining no one else wished to testify, reminded the committee that before it was a motion to report Version H, as amended. He asked if there were any objections. There being no objection, CSHB 215(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|