HB 160-REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT  8:14:26 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 160, "An Act relating to the art requirements for certain public buildings and facilities and to the funding of works of art." 8:14:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt proposed committee substitute for HB 160, labeled 29-LS0696\H, as the working document. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. 8:15:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, said that between 2004-2013, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the Department of Education and Early Development, and the Alaska Court System spent a combined total of $9,129,581 on art programs expenditures. She explained there are two parts to Version H: enacting a five-year moratorium on one percent funding for art in public places, July 1, 2015 - July 1, 2020; enacting a sunset date on the art works in public buildings and facilities' statute, as well as the art in public place fund. She pointed out that the original bill did not discuss the moratorium but the Arts Council requested time in which to become self-sufficient as it recognized that the goal of the bill is to no longer fund one percent for arts. She advised that the compromise of the five-year moratorium is not funding but allows the Art Council to sell art work and lend art work to become self-sufficient. She acknowledged that she "read it backwards," and said Version A repealed all statutes requiring one percent funding for art in public buildings and facilities, as well as amending other statutes referencing the one percent for arts. Version H, she pointed out, changes that requirement for one percent funding for art in public buildings and facilities with a five-year moratorium July 1, 2015 - July 1, 2020, it also includes a sunset date on AS 35.27, the art in public places fund. She advised that the legislature can no longer afford to offer these nice things, that the legislature values art and artists, but the state will no longer sponsor them. She offered hope that the Arts Council will become self- sufficient. 8:18:50 AM CHAIR LYNN noted that currently the arts receive one percent and asked how much money would this put back into the main stream to be used for other purposes in a time of fiscal shortages. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS responded it would put one percent of the project ... CHAIR LYNN restated, in approximate dollars, how much more money would the state have to spend for other things. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered, "I guess ... if you don't have a project then you don't have any money for that one percent of that project." She noted that the legislature is considering not funding capital projects, specifically schools, at this time and remarked from the schools' standpoint ... CHAIR LYNN interjected that money not spent on anything will go back into the general fund to be spent on other necessary items. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS replied that whatever one percent of the project is, that is how much will be saved. CHAIR LYNN asked how one qualifies to have a piece of art displayed. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS responded that it is different in different places, although, at one time within the Matanuska- Susitna School District the Wasilla Art Group and the Wasilla High School Principal chose the art. CHAIR LYNN surmised that artists submit the art or a description of the art and someone decides. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS offered the examples of the particular art program at Wasilla High School, or art being chosen by a school board, and it can be decided in a different manner within the same community. 8:21:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO advised he is torn by the fact that the art, within his involvement with the municipal government, was created by local artists and Alaska residents, and although there will be a savings there is also the benefit of allowing Alaskan artists a market. He said he is struggling with this bill. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS referred to his comments and stated that is the reason she compromised with the Arts Council to assist them in becoming self-sufficient within the next five years. She put forth that it is not her desire to take away from local Alaskan artists, but rather to recognize that within these budgetary times the Arts Council believes it can develop creative ideas to become self-sufficient. 8:23:55 AM ENZINA MARRARI, Curator, Public Arts Program, Municipality of Anchorage, said in the 15 years she has lived in Alaska has known several individuals who have benefited from the public art program as they have been awarded opportunities for professional growth, development, financial sustainability, and exposure both locally and nationally. Additionally, she said, she has seen Anchorage and the state benefit from this program by gaining cultural, social, and economic value. She pointed out that Alaska was a pioneer in the national movement, such as 8th grade art work in public buildings and adopting the public arts statute in 1975. She expressed that losing this legacy would be a tremendous loss for Alaska and yet would have virtually no impact on the state's operating or capital budgets. She pointed out that the City of Anchorage and the State of Alaska aspire to offer areas people prefer to live and visit and a strong public art expression offers communities a stronger sense of place and identity. Therefore, she expressed, public art reflects community and cultural identities and creates public investment and pride in the city and state. She explained that funds from percent for art commissions also support fabricators, electricians, welders, engineers, and other skilled workers. According to Americans for the Arts, cities with an active and dynamic cultural scene are more attractive to individuals and businesses. She said that public art stimulates learning about art, environments, inter-connected lives, and the social sphere as a whole. Investing helps to diversify the state's art economy through recognition of the roles artists play as small business owners. Lastly, she advised, HB 160 will not impact the state's overall operating or capital budgets because percent for art funds are specifically allocated to construction budgets and would likely be reallocated to other construction expenses within each individual project. CHAIR LYNN advised that the bill is not for or against art, but is a moratorium on one percent for art. 8:30:50 AM SHANNON DAUT, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts, explained that at the time one percent for art was passed, the State of Alaska was 16 years old, and a pioneer in the movement of integrating public art into public buildings. Thereby, she said, creating a more open and assessable environment for interaction within public spaces. Through the years an incredible collection of assets has been developed reflecting the state's cultural history and, she pointed out, these assets are the sole part of construction budgets that appreciates over time. She then discussed the role the program plays for artists in making a living, improving Alaska's financial picture, quality of life, and outlined the national standards that the Alaska State Council on the Arts adheres to when presenting a commission. She expressed that the council understands the budget situation and everyone feels like "they are in this together," but this moratorium would disproportionally cut the arts and artists, and the percent for arts program was designed to contract when the capital budget shrinks, "it's kind of built in, in the cake." 8:35:09 AM CHAIR LYNN asked for clarification as to whether Ms. Daut stated "art is part of the eco-system." MS. DAUT responded that artists must be smart in creating a career for themselves as independent sole proprietor and within this eco-system there are a variety of different things that assists artists in moving forward. She related that it includes: professional development, gallery sales, gallery representation, working in schools with children, teaching at universities or in schools, and that public art is a significant component of that. Finances are just one piece, as within each of the projects contractors, fabricators, welders, are hired, and often artists going through the process of public commission are able to hone their skills with a greater level of sophistication in which they approach their businesses. Lastly, she said, the public art commission can help gain exposure for artists nationally and internationally. 8:37:31 AM ANNE COATES McGRATH, Anchorage, Alaska, said she grew up in Anchorage, is a graphic designer and artist, and that her mother Pam Coates was very involved in the percent for arts program. She said the rich culture and environment inspired her to become an artist, so she traveled to Los Angeles to attend an arts school for design, and returned to Alaska a few years ago due to the naturally rich beauty and culturally rich communities. She related that public art provides access to everyone, and can be inspirational through its stories in a manner beyond the reach of common language. It is important to provide children access to art even though their parents may not be deeply involved, as some of the children continue on and become artists, architects, and designers, which impacts the world in positive ways. She stressed that public art is essential to communities and she would be disappointed to see the rich cultural element hampered in any manner. 8:41:29 AM KESLER WOODWARD, Vice Chair, Alaska State Council on the Arts, said he is testifying on his own behalf and as the president of the Alaska Arts and Culture Foundation, not for profit. He fervently urged the committee not to be lulled into believing that the five year moratorium will have an effect other than to kill this highly successful work program, and that the moratorium will have no positive impact on state budgets. He pointed out that 40 years ago, when Alaska was a young and visionary state, Alaska became the third state in the country to adopt the percent for art law and currently more than half of the states have thriving programs of this sort. He related that he has a sense of what Yogi Berra famously called "Déjà vu all over again," as over the decades legislation has been proposed several times to repeal this law. The issue of the cost of the program has been raised over the decades and, he remarked, the issue was successfully explained in that repeal of this law would not save the state any money because the statute requires that one percent of existing "state capital construction budgets" be used for art in public buildings. He pointed out that repealing this law will not lower the cost of state buildings and will only impoverish the "built" environment. He reminded the committee that it has received compelling testimonies from councils and artists on these facts, and reiterated that there is no state funding on top of existing capital construction budgets. 8:45:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred Mr. Woodward and other testimonies that [repeal] would have absolutely no effect on the operating or capital budget. He stressed that while he deeply appreciates the value of art and the enrichment of Alaskans, there is a portion of state revenue being spent. He opined that the blanket statement goes too far by declaring it has no effect. MR. WOODWARD answered that state building cost what they cost and allocations are made within the capital construction budget, and those figures are set. He explained that one percent is not added on top of that capital construction budget in order to buy art as that art comes out of that budget the same as "everything else." It goes for the same things the rest of the construction budget goes for such as, design, engineering, and outfitting of those buildings. He said if this one percent was not spent on art, it would be spent on such things as windows, flooring, and bathrooms. He offered that a successful case has been made over the years that eliminating this program won't save any money and that it is a false belief to think that the building will cost one percent less, as the building will cost just the same. 8:47:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that he has a construction background and if there is a one percent requirement on the cost, assuming this is all operated on a bid system, it does have an impact on the bids. He referred to Mr. Woodward's statement that 40 other states have similar programs, and asked whether they are all state sponsored programs. MR. WOODWARD clarified that he said just over half of the states in the country now have a program of this sort, and 26 states with a percent for arts program mandates that a small percentage of funding is included for state funded buildings. 8:49:40 AM CHAIR LYNN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Keller as he had to leave and present a bill in the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee. He advised that he supports CSHB 160, and would like to move it out of committee. 8:50:11 AM JUNE ROGERS, Executive Director, Fairbanks Arts Association, expressed concern for CSHB 160, and acknowledged the dire circumstances before the legislature and is grateful for their pursuit of budget solutions. However, she said, she cannot support the advancement of this bill as the economics of budget decisions do not hold up to scrutiny. Repealing the act would not bring new dollars to the budget, rather it would be reallocated to other costs in each individual capital project budget. She pointed out that when investing state dollars in public art or enhancements, it is important to understand the results expected. Artists are a significant segment of a community's diversity of economics, she described, and their work is important to the advancement of their own small business ventures and those of their suppliers. She pointed out that the appreciation of a piece of art is something to think about, and questioned which segment of Alaska's economy is expendable. There are areas of excess in the budget that can and should have been cut before being compelled to reckon with the current budget problems, she expressed. 8:53:05 AM NANCY DeCHERNEY, Executive Director, Juneau Arts & Humanities Council, referred to the questions regarding whether the state is saving money by eliminating the percent for art, and advised that simply because "it is a percentage of something that if there is no ... a percent of zero is still zero." She opined that she does not know whether there is an analysis of the income actually seen from having public art in Alaska's airports and public buildings, and noted that the Juneau State Capitol Building is a source of tourist destination having to do with its history and also the beautiful building with pieces of art. The business of jobs has come forward and the amount of work developed by local artists and they are working hard to use the arts in a creative fashion to make Juneau a center for Northwest Coast art, she explained. Ms. DeCherney suggested the committee to not only consider the one percent savings over a period of time, but to also contemplate what might be lost over a period of time by not investing art into Alaska's public. VICE CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony after ascertaining that no one further wished to testify. 8:55:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that his step-father was an artist and his art work appears in San Francisco, and somewhat in Alaska. He said he has no financial interest in this, but has a spiritual interest and agrees with those who have weighed in against this bill. 8:57:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered concerns about the bill, and although he appreciates the intent and motivation of the sponsor given the current climate, opined that this would be looking in the wrong direction. He referred to Representative Talerico's comments in that with one percent for the art there are very small commissions parceled out to local artists. He said that not only does this money stay local, it stays "ultra- local" and continually recirculates creating a huge amount of activity proportional to the relatively small amount of money being discussed. In reviewing the economic sense, he described a huge return for a small investment. He advised that he spoke with someone in this building regarding the University of Alaska system who believes the University of Alaska should be the University for Alaska. He related differences when comparing the University of Kansas to the University of Alaska in that various campuses speak to programs such as, arctic engineering, GEO physics, and cold climate housing research. He then referred to buildings in Alaska, public schools, and public facilities and said it is important that the places Alaskans live and work do not look like buildings in other states. He said in growing up around Alaska, the one percent for art effectively differentiated and presented students with a sense of place and identity, and possibly patriotism for Alaska. 9:00:01 AM VICE CHAIR KELLER commented that some of the testimony makes it appear this is a vote for or against art, which puts everyone in a bad spot. He opined that the question is whether the state will subsidize art, even though it has been portrayed as not a subsidy and rather an innocent requirement that one percent extra be spent on public buildings. He further opined that it translates out to subsidy. 9:00:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that his former brother-in- law, a well-known local artist, sculpted the bear across the street, the bears at DiPac, and will be sculpting the whale. He related that everyone in Juneau views those sculptures on a daily basis. He said he will not be offering amendments. 9:02:18 AM VICE CHAIR KELLER announced HB 160 was held over.