Senate subcommittee pauses action on bill to use endowment money for Arts Across the Prairie, debates new FTE

The Senate Appropriations subcommittee for the Human Resources Division opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 2010, which would authorize use of Cultural Endowment Fund money for construction of Arts Across the Prairie public artworks and would add one full‑time equivalent (FTE) position at the North Dakota Council on the Arts.

Committee members heard agency testimony that the council is ready to build art installations in four of the initiative’s eight regions and asked for authority to spend $380,000 from the existing Cultural Endowment Fund for artwork fabrication. Jess, an agency representative for the council, said, “we are ready to build in 4 of the 8 regions.”

The fund balance and the requested authorities

Legislative staff said the Cultural Endowment Fund contained about $976,000 as of June 30 of the prior fiscal year and that the $380,000 under discussion would come from that existing balance. Budget staff described the $380,000 as a reallocation of previously appropriated funds (a continuing appropriation) rather than a new line item in the governor’s budget documents. Committee members were also told the council requested an additional $559,000 in a separate decision package (decision package No. 3) to pay for infrastructure such as parking turnouts, ADA‑compliant approaches and signage around the artworks; that request was not included in the governor’s budget.

Project scope, costs and process

Committee testimony outlined how the Arts Across the Prairie program selects and pays artists and funds fabrication. Agency testimony said artist contracts generally include a $55,000 artist fee and a $95,000 fabrication fee; regions that expect higher costs would be expected to fundraise for the remainder. The council’s presentation showed planned works near Rugby (Region 2), the Grand Forks area (Region 4), Gackle (Region 6) and near Medora (Region 8). The council said the installations are intended to be permanently sited adjacent to highways and visible from the road and that signed easements with landowners are in place, with some agreements reportedly structured for 30 years with renewal options.

Questions and concerns from legislators

Some senators said they supported moving forward with the projects but raised reservations about adding an FTE during the session. Senator Davison (Senator Davison) said he did not support adding the new FTE at this time and indicated he would oppose that portion of the request: “I don’t support the FTE.” Other senators pressed for clarity about which budget documents show the items, why the infrastructure package and the $380,000 are not visible on the long budget sheets, and whether the governor’s omission of the infrastructure request was intentional or a funding constraint. Budget staff explained the $559,000 infrastructure request was not advanced in the governor’s proposal and that the $380,000 is part of a continuing appropriation and therefore not reflected on the standard budget sheets.

Donations and authority to spend

Committee discussion also covered whether the council could accept private donations to pay for parking or approaches. Staff said language was already included in current appropriation language (referenced in the council’s green sheet) that allows the council to accept donated funds and spend them. Committee members noted that accepting donations could allow local landowners or communities to fund parking and access if the legislature does not fully fund the infrastructure package.

Motion and next steps

A motion was made to recommend “do not pass” on Senate Bill 2010, but the motion failed for lack of a second. The subcommittee agreed to set the bill aside and reconvene the next morning after other scheduled hearings to consider the bill again. Committee leaders said they wanted more time to review testimony and the budget materials before acting.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to defeat Senate Bill 2010: moved (mover not specified); no second; motion failed for lack of a second.

What was not decided

No formal roll‑call vote on final approval of Senate Bill 2010 occurred. The committee did not adopt an amendment on adding the $380,000 language to the bill during this session; staff indicated that the section would need to be added by amendment to appear in the bill text. The FTE request remained contested and unresolved.

Next scheduled action

The subcommittee recessed and agreed to take up Senate Bill 2010 late the next morning after two hearings scheduled for 9 a.m.