Court turns light back on for public art

Seattle's One Percent for Art program is safe for now, but it won't be operating the same way it did before 2004. A state appeals court ruling this week effectively ends the long-term consequences members of Seattle's art community were worried about.

The court reinstated City Light's participation in the One Percent for Art program, reversing a critical part of a lower court's decision. But the appeals court upheld most of the lower court's 2004 judgment, ruling that the utility cannot pay for art that isn't closely related to its mission of providing electricity. The city must also reimburse City Light about $1 million spent on "impermissible" art projects between 2000 and 2003.

Arts supporters became concerned that last year's ruling excluding City Light from the One Percent for Art program may have eventually affected Seattle Public Utilities' participation in the program as well, said Jim McDonald, director of the city's public-art program. "If it was upheld, it could have been viewed as a precedent-setting decision — regionally and possibly nationally — on utility participation in public-art programs."

The One Percent for Art ordinance, enacted in 1973, made Seattle one of the first cities in the country to allocate 1 percent of capital improvement projects to public art, said Karen Bystrom, a spokeswoman at the city's Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs.

City Light funds composed nearly a third of One Percent for Art's $7 million income from 2000 to 2003. The program has received no money from City Light since 2004.

Former City Light employee Rudy Okeson is leading the group that sued City Light. He claimed that city officials misused the utility's funds in late 1999 by charging Seattle ratepayers for streetlights. Okeson argued that officials spent City Light money on illegitimate expenses, including some art projects, between 2000 and 2003.

If neither side appeals in 30 days from Dec. 19, this week's decision will be final.

At that time, the city will begin to figure out how to reimburse City Light for $941,312, said McDonald. The city must also draw up guidelines on commissioning art that is closely tied to the utility's mission of furnishing electricity.

The appeals court ruled that some art projects, such as Colorado filmmaker Dick Alweis' documentary on City Light's Boundary Dam, were permissible, but others, like Seattle artist Dan Corson's "Wave Rave Cave", a sculpture under Highway 99 near Belltown, did not have a sufficiently close connection to the utility's mission.

Richard Andrews, director of the Henry Art Gallery, said he is pleased with this decision. "I think it's a positive endorsement of the value of art within the public realm and as a legitimate expenditure."

Judy Chia Hui Hsu: 206-464-3315 or jhsu@seattletimes.com