成人X站

The Snohomish courthouse is now at the center of a debate over the role of art in taxpayer-funded projects.

The cost of overhauling the courthouse recently rose by $4.6 million more than its $72 million budget.

In an effort to trim expenses, Councilmember Nate Nehring proposed to as a result of a county requirement. His ordinance passed with a 3-2 vote on Monday.

“Most of the folks I talked to didn’t see the necessity in putting half-a-million dollars on a project which is already $4.6 million over [budget] into an arts fund,” Nehring told The Jason Rantz Show.

RELATED: Drug users will get a pass on minor charges in Snohomish County

Passed in 2006, the arts ordinance requires 1 percent of all major construction projects to be funneled toward on-site artwork. The Snohomish County Arts Commission then decides how to spend the arts funds. But Nehring’s proposal stipulates that the 1 percent requirement only applies to the first $10 million of the courthouse overhaul and any other projects in the future.

“One of the things I noticed is that there’s an argument being made that it’s our responsibility to create jobs for public artists, and that puzzled me a bit,” Nehring said. “I see that as a big overreach for the scope of government.”

Nehring is not suggesting that the government play no role in supporting public art projects, but he is arguing for changing how this is done.

“I think there are a lot of ways to include art in our public projects, whether it’s going into the schools and allowing our students to do it, or whether it’s opening up spaces like the courthouse to have artists come in and show their work, free of charge to the taxpayer.”

“But I don’t think it’s necessary to spend half-a-million for a project which is already over budget.”

Should artwork funding in government projects be eliminated?

While some in the arts community opposed the measure, including Snohomish City Councilmember Karen Guzak who is an artist, Nehring found that even lowering the artwork fund requirement was not enough for his constituents. Many wondered why government buildings have to dedicate funds to on-site artwork at all.

“They were appalled that there was an existing requirement to spend 1 percent on art,” Nehring said. “They saw absolutely no reason to have that. They were asking me, ‘Why limit it at $10 million? Why not go lower? Why are we contributing any public money at all to art?'”

Given that, the question is whether Nehring would ever consider an ordinance removing this artwork funding from any future government building.

“That’s something I would definitely consider supporting,” he said.