Committee affirms art‑in‑public‑places authority for current long‑bill projects, seeks flexibility amid budget uncertainty
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The committee voted 4–1 to send a letter to the State Controller confirming intent to allow Art in Public Places spending for projects in the fiscal 2025‑26 long bill; members discussed statutory requirements, a waiver process and potential budgetary flexibility for future years.
The Capital Development Committee voted to send a letter to the Office of the State Controller affirming the committee’s intent that the Art in Public Places program remain available to projects appropriated in the fiscal 2025–26 long bill, while acknowledging possible budgetary constraints ahead. Staff and presenters said the State Controller identified a statutory paperwork and spending‑authority issue that can be remedied by minor long‑bill language changes in the next budget cycle. Matt Bishop (Legislative Council staff) described the request as procedural: the Office of the State Controller asked CDC to confirm that CDC intends for the program to operate as it has for projects funded in the most recent long bill so OSC can allow spending under the existing statutory scheme. Committee members discussed whether waiving Art in Public Places for specific projects is possible if budgetary pressures increase. Beau Pogue (Legislative Council staff) explained a waiver process exists: an institution or department may request a waiver, and CDC retains the statutory authority to exempt projects in certain circumstances. Committee members noted at least one current project (Auraria Campus Safety Center) is in active construction and therefore already ineligible for a mid‑course waiver without statutory or appropriation changes. Senator Malika moved that staff send a letter confirming CDC’s intent to implement the Art in Public Places program for appropriations in the 2025–26 long bill; the motion passed 4–1. The committee asked staff to draft the requested letter and noted that if the legislature chooses to change the statutory requirement as part of upcoming budget decisions, that would be a separate policy action.
