Date: 12/02/2008

Final
Potential 2009 Capital Development Legislation

COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Draft legislation extending the scheduled repeal oPASS


01:32 PM -- Potential 2009 Capital Development Committee Legislation

Ms. Jennifer Moe, Legislative Council Staff, gave an overview of potential legislation that could be sponsored by the Capital Development Committee (CDC) in 2009. Committee members received a memorandum summarizing several issues that could be addressed with legislation during the 2009 session, prepared by Legislative Council Staff (Attachment T). Ms. Moe explained that the first item listed in Attachment T is the scheduled repeal of the CDC on July 1, 2009. Mr. Jeremiah Barry, Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), responded to a question about whether the Department of Regulatory Agencies has any role in the repeal of the CDC.
BILL:Potential 2009 Capital Development Legislation
TIME: 01:36:03 PM
MOVED:Bacon
MOTION:Draft legislation extending the scheduled repeal of the Capital Development Committee. The motion passed unanimously.
SECONDED:
VOTE
McFadyen
Yes
Penry
Yes
Schwartz
Yes
Sonnenberg
Yes
Bacon
Yes
Riesberg
Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



01:37 PM

Ms. Moe continued with an explanation of the second item listed in Attachment T, concerning review thresholds for cash-funded requests from state departments versus higher education institutions. Discussion ensued about whether there is a need to raise the state department review threshold for cash-funded requests. Several committee members expressed concern about raising the threshold. Ms. Moe continued with the third item listed in Attachment T, concerning the exemption of certain cash-funded capital projects from the six-month encumbrance deadline. Discussion ensued. The chair directed OLLS to draft legislation related to this issue. Ms. Moe continued with the fourth item listed in Attachment T, concerning the allocation of 1 percent of capital construction costs for art in public places for state-funded versus cash-funded projects, and project costs to be considered for the 1 percent calculation for art in public places. Discussion ensued. Several committee members expressed their strong support for the 1 percent for art in public places program. Discussion continued.

01:50 PM

Discussion about 1 percent for art in public places continued, and eventually the issue was tabled for the time being. Ms. Moe continued with the fifth and sixth items listed in Attachment T, concerning information provided to the CDC from DOW and Parks regarding real property transaction proposals and the order in which the CDC is involved with reviews of real property transaction proposals submitted by both. Discussion ensued.

02:00 PM

Discussion continued about the expectations for reports provided by DOW and Parks for real property transaction proposals. The committee requested feedback from CDC staff regarding materials provided by the divisions and whether a statutory change is required. Ms. Moe suggested a memorandum of understanding regarding expectations for materials provided by DOW and Parks to the CDC would be appropriate. Discussion turned to the whether the committee would like to sponsor legislation concerning the order in which the CDC is involved with reviews of real property transaction proposals. The chair directed OLLS to draft legislation.