Ann Arbor's public art program suspended while committee considers changes
The city of Ann Arbor is partially suspending its Percent For Art Program while a five-member committee looks into options for taking a new approach to public art.
That could involve everything from revising the current program to starting a completely new program or having no program at all.
"It's time that we took a hard look at this," said City Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward. "Maybe it is time we say, 'OK, we're going wipe the slate clean and make a new ordinance.' "
This tree sculpture in West Park was paid for by the city's Percent For Art Program.
Courtesy of City of Ann Arbor
The suspension won't affect three projects already in the planning stages. That includes a $150,000 project in connection with the Argo Cascades on the Huron River, a $360,000 project at the site of the new East Stadium bridges and $23,380 project at a rain garden at First and Kingsley.
The council's action also won't stop the $150,000 hanging sculpture that's slated for installation in the Justice Center lobby in either March or April. That's already under contract.
Craig Hupy, the city's public services administrator, acknowledged the council's action also won't have much effect on a handful of other projects in the pipeline, including two upcoming murals in yet-to-be-determined locations in the city and other artworks being discussed in connection with a plaza on Forest Avenue, a roundabout at State and Ellsworth and the city's manhole covers.
Council Member Jane Lumm, who has been calling for termination of the Percent For Art Program ever since voters turned down a public art tax last month, said the council should be honest about what Monday's action means and what it doesn't mean.
"The practical consequences of this suspension are virtually zero, so none of us should walk away from this thinking that by temporarily suspending Percent For Art now we're somehow being responsive to the community," Lumm said. "I really don't think that we are."
Mayor John Hieftje announced the names of the five council members who will serve on the committee that will work between now and Feb. 15 to decide how to to amend the city's public art ordinance: Sabra Briere, Sally Hart Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Christopher Taylor and Margie Teall. Hieftje said he hopes the city will continue to have an art program of some kind.
Under the existing program, the city takes 1 percent of the money budgeted for city capital projects and sets it aside for public art. That has resulted in diverting well over $2 million from dedicated millages for streets, parks and solid waste, as well as water and sewer utility funds.
Hieftje stressed Monday night that only $50,000 of the money set aside for public art ever came from the city's general fund, which includes the police and fire department budgets.
One criticism of the program has been that it leaves the Public Art Commission with its hands tied — able to spend the revenues only on permanent installations that relate to the source of the funds, such the $750,000 water sculpture in front of city hall that was paid for with water and sewer funds. If the city is going to have an art program, most agree it should have more flexibility.
Several council members mentioned they wish the city could do a better job leveraging outside funding for public art, including private funding from the community. Hieftje and Council Member Chuck Warpehoski, D-5th Ward, both pointed to Toledo's art program as a good example.
"I'm very hopeful that as the committee looks at this, we can look at what it would take to reach out in a better way to bring in more funding," Hieftje said.
But if the city is going to do that, Hieftje said, it's going to need a framework and it's going to need an art commission.
The council's action doesn't remove any of the art funds that already have been set aside in the fiscal year 2012-13 budget or prior budgets.
With respect to the three projects exempt from the suspension, the council has directed the Public Art Commission to directly contact local organizations, including neighborhood associations, that might be interested in the projects. The commission must hold two or more public forums at which interested members of the public can offer their opinions on the projects.
After each public forum, the commission must provide a report to council summarizing the information provided and the comments received.
Warpehoski said he thinks some of the tension regarding the public art program has been a question of clarity: Has council given clear direction to the Public Art Commission to go about its work?
"This is a chance for council to provide that clarity," he said.
Teall was the only council member to vote against the temporary suspension, which she worried would have a chilling effect on art ideas coming from the Public Art Commission.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Roger Kuhlman
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 9:47 p.m.
If people want Public Art in Ann Arbor, they should open up their wallets and purses and pay for it themselves. All property owners or renters should not be forced to pay for it. End the program and all the current art projects now.
Simon Green
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.
Make the rich pay their fair share. That fixes everything.
Sparty
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 10:50 a.m.
Typical of Teall's listening skills - she refuses to listen to her constituents, return our emails, answer our phone calls, and she generally either misses or leaves Council meetings early. That's something she shares with Higgins, so they are called the invisible women of the 4th Ward !
Bill
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
WIth a little effort I suspect that next election Teall will become invisible as she is voted out of office.
Ryan J. Stanton
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.
Some of you have asked why Jane Lumm is not on the public art committee. I'm told that she did not indicate a desire to be on the committee, but the other five did.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
Did she tell you this?
Dog Guy
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:39 p.m.
In homage to Alexander Calder as well as to our public-spirited art selectors, I suggest mobile-izing the tree sculpture in West Park pictured herein. Full-length portraits or sculptures of members of the Public Art Commission and Aaron Seagraves, the city's part-time public art administrator, could be suspended from the radiating arms to dance with the wind. It is time that these modest public servants receive appropriate public recognition they so richly deserve.
LXIX
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.
Watching the local soap Mon. it was pretty clear that the Mayor and Council knew what their constituents wanted and also how to walk the tightrope between their job security and what they could get away with. That seems to be the standard politcal art now - whip at them down to the last brush stroke. Previous commenters already had the best ideas - buy people approved available art from local artists. Let them display accepted works for free or for a cash prize. Cycle rented art like 5 or 10 year pieces. Team with private sector funds (as does Toledo Art). etc. This might ruin the art committee's ability to bless their own fav David of the month in their all so-important little circle of friends - ya well, so?
JRW
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.
Just reread the section on current "art" projects.......at the roundabout at State and Ellsworth? You've got to be kidding. Putting a roundabout at that location is just ridiculous. There are huge full size semi trucks that use that intersection all day and all night long, exiting and entering I-94. I see those huge trucks going through that intersection all the time. A roundabout just won't work for those huge trucks. The roundabouts built so far in this city are tiny little miniatures, that even small trucks have a hard time getting through. There has already been one truck turnover at the roundabout at 23 and Geddes. The State and Ellsworth intersection is totally the wrong place for a roundabout given the huge amount of semi truck traffic. And then to add taxpayer funded art to a roundabout that will likely be destroyed by the first semi that tips over??? Good luck. Whoever makes that decision needs to pay for the repairs when the "art" is knocked over by a huge truck.
Vivienne Armentrout
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 10:44 a.m.
I agree, and wondered about that the first time I heard about it. This is an artifact of the attempt to make Percent for Art legal in light of the Bolt decision. That Supreme Court decision prohibited use of fees for any activity not related to the service the fees were paid for. Thus we have metal trees in the parks and a City Hall artwork that most citizens will never see (the one in the Justice Center, not yet displayed). But the idea of putting art in a roundabout is just nuts.
arborani
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
By the way, how is this Committee chosen?
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.
Hizzhoner stopped fast and these 5 were following just a l i t t l e too close. After the extraction, they were named to this committee.
JRW
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:27 p.m.
Good question. Let's hear an answer from aa dot com.
JRW
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.
I agree with other posters who said they were "taken" by the city and that monstrosity in front of City Hall. Who authorized that decision? Who chose that piece? Not only is it a terrible example of "public art", it's grossly overpriced ($750,000) and no one in the community-at-large had any opportunity for input. Not to mention the skimmed funds from road maintenance that was used! Who was responsible for this?
JRW
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
"That could involve everything from revising the current program to starting a completely new program or having no program at all." Having no program at all is the best idea proposed. Until city services are fully restored, such as police and fire, and all the potholes are filled, there is no way the city should be spending tax dollars on art. I sure hope that these projects in the pipeline aren't using any more "skimmed" funds from road maintenance and other necessary services......
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
Shocking that Hizzzhoner didn't name Jane Lumm to his special committee. It will be even more shocking when Hizzzzhonerzz toadies decide we need to keep spending like drunken sailors.
W.J.Mundus
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
I hope the new committee knows that "public Art" means art for the public to enjoy not art INSIDE public buildings. Puting 'ART" in the city hall addition is puting lipstick on a pig.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
Unfair to pigs I tell you!
pegret
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.
AMEN!
Tanzor
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.
What is more important, Human life and the safety of our citizens or public art. This year in Ann Arbor several people have been struck by vehicles resulting in the loss of life and lifetime suffering for many people. Over a Million dollars have been spent on public art; wouldn't it be better to spend this money on "HAWK" crossing systems? 900,000.00 Dollars alone has been spent for the non-functioning water sculpture and fancy lighting fixture behind a high security check point. For what this unnecessary art cost we could have install over ten "HAWK" crosswalk systems, lives could be saved. Apparently, city council puts a higher priority on public art then the life and safety of our citizens.
lou glorie
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
"Hieftje stressed Monday night that only $50,000 of the money set aside for public art ever came from the city's general fund, which includes the police and fire department budgets." This is our mayor doing what he does best--creating ambiguity where there had been none. No one ever suggested that this money is coming from the general fund. The supporters of the % for art new from the start that the GF had already been raided and could scarcely take care of basic services. Instead our water, sewer, roads and parks funds are raided for this program that mostly enhances the status of status hungry "arts elite". But hizzonor assures us the money does not come from the general fund. His artful dodging is really tiresome. Now about the photo of the dead copper palm erected in West Park: How could they? Where is the relevance? Was it meant to be suggestive of Michigan's future in a warmed-up climate? Was it intended to conjure a sunny beach on the gulf of Mexico where the palms had been killed by an oil spill. In this case it should have come with a dozen or so oil covered water fowl (in copper of course). It says nothing, nadda, rien de tout for a slightly soggy park in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Looking at it makes me sad. Silly, really silly.
Arboriginal
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:07 p.m.
Hee Haw! Great comment!
bunnyabbot
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
So who decided who was on this 5 member sub-committee? Will they have the guts to do away with the current art program completely before coming to the people to vote on any new art program? The mayor stated "only" $50,000 came from the general fund. In my opinion that was $50,000 too much.
J K
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.
If people are complaining that public places like the Library aren't safe enough for their children, then we need more public safety before we can fund more public art. If the City is complaining they have to close fire stations because there is not enough funding to staff enough firefighters to meet the requirements of the law for a proper response, then we need more public safety before we can fund more public arts. Is that clear enough? PS A new or revised public arts ordinance would be just as illegal without a majority public vote.
Dog Guy
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
April 1 is an appropriate day to approve more public funds for what the Public Art Commission calls art.
walker101
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
Don't complain if you voted for those that make approvals for such.
Bill
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
I seem to remember that more than a year ago there was a proposal put forward to ask the city attorney for a legal opinion regarding legality of the art funding. While this seems like a request that would be a non-issue, for some reason I believe the Mayor felt it was unnecessary.Why wouldn't the council want a legal opinion regarding a program they created? Have there ever been any successful recall of council members in Ann Arbor? Perhaps the 18 votes in Ward 4 might have changed their minds. I also find it interesting, but not surprising, that Lumm was excluded from the committee. With Lumm on the committee, what is probably the majority of the citizens of Ann Arbor would have been represented and this would not be good for the status quo Council mentality.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
The "art commission" plans a project involving manhole covers? Really? Just what we need: another distraction in the road. I prefer a good, old fashioned, cast iron manhole cover which may or may not have a yellow line painted on it depending on where it is in the road. That is enough.
demistify
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.
You missed the point: You are not supposed to be in a car trying to get somewhere. You are supposed to be on a bike, blocking traffic while you stop to admire the manhole cover.
Elaine F. Owsley
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.
Well, this is some kind of progress. Only til April 1? How about for the whole of 2013?
timjbd
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.
Well, there are three opinions. Like other things that everyone has one of.
timjbd
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
Yep. Need an edit function.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
Teall was on the subcommittee who actually VOTED to approve the Giant Urinal Water Fountain and send the request to City Council for approval. You remember, she had time to attend this day time meeting for ' art' but was too sick to attend the Council meeting later that same evening to vote for a proposal for homeless funding. Some people have very short memories around here it appears.
Linda Peck
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.
It is not only the way the money is obtained for art in this program, it is the decision making of the program that I have a problem with. It has not been successful to date as far as I can see. It is also a question of when is a good time to spend the money on luxury items, and this is not the time for it. We need more police and fire personnel and equipment and we need to fix our roads and other infrastructures. Let's be a bit more conservative here, City Council, and also try to listen to the voters and not keep fighting against the community's decisions. It is really distressing and does not give a feeling of confidence in our representatives.
Veracity
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
The "committee-of-five" should comply with the decision of the electorate on November 6th when voters clearly rejected public funding for art. Furthermore, the "committee-of-five" should acknowledge the obvious which is that the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC) is dysfunctional, deciding on art that is favored by its members but not by the community, selecting artists on reputation only and without competition, and spending excessively to purchase overpriced art objects. Finally, Ann Arbor may have sufficient public art on display now along with the University of Michigan's extensive and noteworthy collection (http://public-art.umich.edu/the_collection/). Whether money taken from capital funds to finance the AAPAC is illegal remains unresolved. Certainly, the capital funds removed would be better used for their primary purposes. If the money would not be missed then those excessive tax funds should be returned to citizens of Ann Arbor in the form of a tax reduction.
B2Pilot
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
Well stated
Nick Danger
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.
I think people would be more supportive of public art if local artist were used. We ave plenty of talent in this community and it is unnessary to spend taxpayer money to those that do not have a stake in the area
Ron Granger
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
Local artists can bid on th proposals just like anyone else. Or are you suggesting local artists cannot compete on merit alone? That they need affirmative action?
golfer
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2 p.m.
gee wounder why Jane Lumm and is not on the committee but the person whom voted against this is? then you wounder why they did not stop the projects ($683,000) that is about 1/2 whats left in the saving. seems like they would put a hold on them. if they have signed a contract they should also see how much cancellation cost are. wounder how much the $699k would do for more crosswalk lights and police and fire.
Arboriginal
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.
How about we remove funding for the municipal golf courses? Complete waste of money!
xmo
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
Why do Ann Arbor Voters keep voting for these Democrats? Can a Republican be any worst than these people? I'd like to find out!
golfer
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
i really do not think it a democrats or republican issue. i think it a bunch of people that like art. they are not thinking of anything but where can we put the stupid art?. it is a commission that needs to be dismantled. when time are good brign them back with some control. example when you purchase anything from your business. you need several approvals. i say you need several approvals from others. let the city council be the final say so. art at this time is not a priority.
Veracity
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
How do you know that they are Democrats? Can you even name the members of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission?
Ron Granger
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.
Why would you assume everyone agrees with you? Half the voters voted for the new ballot measure.
bckramer
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.
I'm in favor of public art projects, though I think some of what we have done is more expensive than needs be. I also feel that we should be supporting local artists, not looking outside (in some cases outside the country) for these pieces. We have already priced most artists out of Ann Arbor studio space; can't we look at the some of the incredible talent here in Washtenaw County when placing art in public spaces?
Veracity
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
I have been told that it would be illegal for the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC) to favor local talent though I have not been shown any such legal language in print. The AAPAC by-laws allow it to establish its own guidelines and will therefore continue to make decisions that are self-serving and elitist without concern for community opinion.
B2Pilot
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
As a citizen I feel we really got taken on the piece in front of city hall someone should be held accountable for that debacle 750K really! It is AWFUL!! if the Mayor insists A2 needs the culture injection lets do 1 piece every 5 years, from private funds or 1 time expense.
JRW
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
Ditto. A thousand dittos.
DNB
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
"Teall was the only council member to vote against the temporary suspension, which she worried would have a chilling effect on art ideas coming from the Public Art Commission." The residents in Ward 4 neighborhoods want sensible priorities, Ms. Teall: public safety, infrastructure and public services. There's also the big problem of flooding in the Lawton neighborhood, and the Georgetown Mall demolition delay. It appears that she would rather lobby for the Percent For Art than spend her time on real, 4th Ward, day-to-day city services issues. Actually, remember, she wanted 2% For Art? Your constituents sent a very clear message in the August primary, remember those 18 votes? Your consituents will not forget.
LA
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
Maybe Teall just wanted to show, for the record, that there was some support for the art program in the community.
DNB
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
I'm with you, Veracity, I have a very good memory. Third time is a charm. ;-)
Veracity
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
Yes, Ms. Teall could not have won re-election by a much closer vote. Nevertheless, the Ward 4 City Council women acts as if she received a mandate for pushing her own views rather than representing her electorate. Remember how Ms. Teall loved the Valiant Partners proposal? Well, she will be up for re-election again in two years, if she wishes. Perhaps three times is a charm and Ward 4 voters will vote for responsible representation from whoever opposes her.
Boo Radley
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
So Councilwoman Lumm, who is against the program, didn't make it on the committee .... Imagine that
golfer
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.
thanks you , thank you and thank you again. it requires study then i hope the money goes to something useful. thanks ann arbor council. way to stat the new year off with a bang.
Brian Kuehn
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:21 p.m.
My understanding is that this suspension only applies to planning of future expenditures, not the collection of the 1% for Art. The money will continue to be collected from capital outlays and set aside for future use, correct? Also does Aaron Seagraves, the city's public art administrator, have other duties within the city governement or is his position solely dedicated to art administration? Is it a full time position and if he has other duties, what are those other duties? Any one know the answers?
Veracity
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.
If the committee does not provide recommendations by April 1st then the 1%-for-art program will proceed as usual.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
Regarding the continued collection of percent for arts funds, there are no eligible projects being funded in the period from now to April. Thus, there will be no collection of funds in that period. It remains to be seen whether the new committee can develop a plan by the April deadline.
a2grateful
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.
The issues with the city's percent for art program are fivefold: 1) Funding is stolen from dedicated millage funds, such as streets, roads, and sewers. Legal and rightful expenditures are diverted to illegal mayoral folly. Meanwhile, our streets are some of the worst in the state. Our neighborhoods are flooding, with the city saying, "Fix it yourselves." We have may have self-serving art at city hall. We need citizen-serving stewardship of our dedicated millage expenditures. 2) Essential services and personnel are being cut. Meanwhile, art employees are added. Wrong, wrong, wrong! 3) The voters do not want this! 4) The voters do not want this! 5) The voters do not want this!
arborani
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.
Grateful: I believe you forgot 6) The voters do not want this!
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.
"The council's action doesn't remove any of the art funds that already have been set aside in the fiscal year 2012-13 budget or prior budgets." "Craig Hupy, the city's public services administrator, acknowledged the council's action also won't have much effect on a handful of other projects in the pipeline..." Of course not. So 'suspended' really is just a feel good word with no meaning while hundreds of thousands of dollars in the pipeline continues to be spent. So who exactly voted AGAINST this resolution? Thank goodness the Mayor appointed I Want Two Per Cent Teall to the committee. Her place should have been filled by Jane Lumm, not an arts program rubber stamp like Teall.
motorcycleminer
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.
Council " get it " ????...right behind Santa the Tooth fairy and perpetual motion....
Carole
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:41 a.m.
The whole "Art Department" needs to be closed down until the city can provide the citizens with full safety with the fire and police departments plus keeping the streets in good repair. Once that is done, they should go back to the citizens and let them decide if an "Art Department" should be developed. Thank you.
Ron Granger
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Oh yes - "Full Safety". Can you name any city that meets the ideal you describe?
Barzoom
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:24 a.m.
Maybe the city will listen to its voters for a change. The Public Art Commission is a waste of money and needs to be disbanded, not chilled.
cindy1
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.
'Teall was the only council member to vote against the temporary suspension, which she worried would have a chilling effect on art ideas coming from the Public Art Commission.' Maybe the most out-of-touch council member...?
A2comments
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.
They still don't get it. No art until police and fire departments are staffed properly.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
Ron asks, "What is the definition of 'properly'?" For me, a resident who has no more expertise in public safety staffing than any of our Council members, proper staffing of our police and fire departments means staffing levels that meet generally accepted national standards. Professional organizations with exactly the kind of expertise necessary for evaluating such issues have developed those standards. Conversely, our Council has asked our fire chief to develop a staffing strategy based on how much they are willing to spend on fire services. Thus, his plan to consolidate 5 stations into 3 is the best possible plan for the resources your Council is willing to devote to your safety. It is not the best plan, just the most affordable plan. Police staffing is similarly connected to the amount the Council is willing to pay rather than a level that reflects the needs of this community. Our police staffing falls far short of national standards. It is the reason it takes so long to address a string of sexual assaults or an sudden surge of home invasions. We have very skilled police officers, just not enough of them. While we ignore public safety, we have an overpopulated planning staff designing ideal plans for the Washtenaw, North Main and South State corridors. We also have millions to spend on a new Amtrak station to accommodate commuters from communities that have not contributed to the cost of developing the commuter transit system we are planning.
pegret
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
Well put, Jack.
Ron Granger
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
What is the definition of "properly"? I think for some people it's a cop on every corner.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
The Mayor thinks that when you ask for better spending priorities, like you are here, that you don't understand that the art funds cannot be used for public safety. Last night, he asked the media to lecture the public on that topic (really). While the percent for arts program uses money that could not be used for police or fire services, it does come from the storm water account, the water account and the road repair account. Last time I looked, we have unresolved storm water flooding, we keep raising our water rates and we have poor quality roads. More important than the diversion of those restricted funds is the Council's past failures to prioritize its spending to address what citizens want. As the Council committee fritters away the hours trying to fix this failed program, the city administration is proceeding with a plan to close fire stations while spending millions on commuter transit planning for residents of other communities. Much of the opposition to arts funding can be traced to the lack of trust voters have with the Council's overall priorities. Thank you Jane Lumm for representing our priorities!