Similar to state law, a requirement to allocate 1 percent of a total project’s cost for art in public buildings might become codified in the borough.
The assembly’s finance committee met Tuesday to discuss the proposal initiated last fall by Alaska Arts Confluence community engagement director Kerri Eggleson.
Committee member Brenda Josephson said while she appreciates and supports art in public buildings, not every public project is appropriate for such funding. “I, as a taxpayer, would feel very frustrated about a requirement to put art on the sewer plant.”
Committee members agreed that language similar to state law would be best applied. Up to 1 percent of construction costs of a public building must be reserved for “the design, construction, mounting and administration of works of art in a school, office building, court building, vessel of the marine highway system, or other building or facility which is subject to substantial public use,” according to state statute.
State law also requires the architect to select an artist for their projects, with approval from the corresponding department after consultation with the Alaska State Council on the Arts and principal users of the building or facility. Selection of an Alaska resident is also encouraged.
The committee directed staff to come up with a draft ordinance modeled after Alaska statute that it could review at a later date. The draft ordinance will include a minimum cost of $250,000 for a project to be subject to the art spending requirement. Staff will also put a cap on a maximum amount of spending.
Committee chair Tom Morphet was absent from the meeting, but Josephson read comments he submitted that she thought pertinent to future discussion. “The biggest issue in public art is who and how the decision is made to buy which pieces of art,” Josephson read. “Controversy surrounding public art has happened around cities all over the world due to the fact that the public has so many ideas on what constitutes art.”
The committee also supported adopting staff recommendations to extend and replace a water main on Mathias Avenue, but wanted to wait until Morphet returned to make an official recommendation to the assembly.
Yuri Baykov asked the borough to extend the water line to his lot. As part of the extension project, staff proposed to replace the current 4-inch line, too narrow to provide adequate pressure for fire hydrants, with a 6-inch line. The borough would pay $68,000 for the project and, as required by borough code, charge property owners benefitting from the service the $20,000 cost of installing the extended line.
The proposal stalled in October when some assembly members felt it was unfair that an adjacent property owner would be required to pay for the extension if they didn’t ask for it. Borough code requires homeowners to hook up to the utility if they are within 200 feet of the line. The line would pass Norm and Suzanne Smith’s property, who would be required to pay $10,000, half the cost of the extension if they develop their lot.
“If we ignore the fire hydrant idea, we could have the 4-inch line,” borough manager Debra Schnabel said. “It would be natural to have the property owner extend the 4-inch line, but it’s not serving the community.”
The committee will make an official recommendation at its January meeting.