HB 52-MUSEUM CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM  8:00:54 AM CHAIR KELLER [announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act establishing a museum construction grant program in the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development."] 8:01:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 52, Version 29-LS0119\W, Glover, 3/30/15, as the working document. [Although the question of whether there were any objections to the motion was not properly addressed, Version W was nonetheless treated as being before the committee as the working document.] 8:01:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 52, explained that under Version W, the bill's proposed new AS 14.57.300(a) now contains language on page 1, lines 10-11, stipulating that the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) may not accept an application for a grant under AS 14.57.300 unless the legislature makes an appropriation for the grant program. The bill's proposed new AS 14.57.300(c) now stipulates on page 2, lines 1-2, that the DCCED shall award to an eligible applicant not more than 50 percent of the final projected costs based on accepted bids. He said HB 52 has essentially become enabling legislation, and offered his belief that the aforementioned changes, resulting from discussions with the committee and DCCED staff, would give the bill's proposed new museum construction grant program an opportunity to move forward. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the practicality of stipulating in the bill's proposed new AS 14.57.300(a) that the DCCED may not accept an application for a grant unless an appropriation to the grant program has been made, given that the legislature isn't going to make any such appropriation until it receives a prioritized list of the projects for which grant applications have been accepted. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, indicating that he'd discussed the issue with DCCED staff, acknowledged that point but relayed that the thought was that because of the current fiscal situation, including such a stipulation would be the best approach to take regardless. In response to further questions, he indicated that if [something changes and] applications for grants ever are accepted, they would be scored and awarded on the basis of merit, and offered his understanding that the DCCED would be submitting a zero fiscal note based on the inclusion of that stipulation in Version W. House Bill 52, he reiterated, is enabling legislation, proposing to establish in statute a matching grant program. 8:11:23 AM KATHERINE ELDEMAR, Director, Division Programs, Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), concurred that the DCCED would be submitting a zero fiscal note because of the inclusion of the aforementioned stipulation in Version W; under that stipulation, the DCCED couldn't accept applications for such grants, and thus wouldn't have to expend resources evaluating any such applications. She relayed, however, that [with passage of the bill] the DCCED would still be promulgating regulations for the proposed museum construction, expansion, and major renovation matching grant program, in anticipation of something possibly changing in the future and applications for such grants then being accepted; and if at some point applications ever are accepted, they would then be evaluated in terms of whether they complied with the program's requirements. 8:14:48 AM LAWRENCE BLOOD, Local Government Specialist V, Division Programs, Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), in response to questions, explained that grants are audited if they exceed $500,000 cumulative; additionally, the DCCED has an internal grant review process, and so there would be oversight. Under DCCED policy, entities that are awarded grants are required to use their own procurement policies, or the state's if they haven't any of their own, and the DCCED tries to ensure transparency in that process. CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 52. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted that under the bill's proposed new AS 14.57.350(2), the term "museum" as used in the bill is [partially] defined via reference to AS 14.57.290, which reads in part: (4) "museum" means an organized and permanent public institution, including a historical society, historical park, historical site, and historical monument, that is primarily educational, scientific, historical, artistic, or cultural in purpose and that owns, borrows, cares for, studies, archives, or exhibits property; 8:19:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report [the proposed CS for HB 52, Version 29-LS0119\W, Glover, 3/30/15,] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 52(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing Committee.