Manhole covers are bland pieces of the urban landscape, typically going unnoticed by the thousands of pedestrians who trample them every day.

Yet in Seattle, they've been transformed into works of art that depict flower patterns and cartoon characters.

Allegheny County Councilman Bill Robinson wants to bring that creative impulse here. Tonight, County Council will consider a bill that would create a five-member arts board and set aside money from public works projects for art.

"If they can do it in Seattle, we can do it in Allegheny County," said Robinson, D-Hill District.

Some county officials, faced with a tight capital budget, aren't sure if Allegheny County should do it.

Robinson's bill would require the county to take 2 percent of funding for capital projects that cost more than $50,000 and use the money for art. For projects that can't accommodate art, the money would go into a special account and be used elsewhere.

The arts board, appointed by council and Chief Executive Dan Onorato, would advise county officials and resemble the city's Pittsburgh Art Commission.

Amy Griser, the county's budget director, has discussed the bill with Robinson, but she said she's still unclear about which projects would be affected.

The Homestead Grays Bridge, for instance, will undergo a major rehabilitation starting next year at a cost of more than $30 million. But most of that money will come from the state and federal governments, and Griser thinks the county's $1.6 million in matching funds for the project would be off-limits for the proposed arts fund.

Councilman Ron Francis, R-Ben Avon, wants to cap the amount of money set aside from a project at $100,000.

"I want the area we live in to be aesthetically pleasing," he said. "But you're not going to spend $2 million on art. There has to be a limit."

Griser worries that even a $100,000 limit per project may be too high. The county has about $40 million in state and federal money and $25 million from bonds to use on public works each year, and officials already have trouble allocating those limited resources.

"We have a lot of demands," Griser said. She thinks county officials would be unwilling to take on more debt for the purpose of accommodating art.

One public arts proponent sees any limit at all as a disappointment.

"If you want to see a project that has a big impact, you have to be willing to spend money," said Renee Piechocki, head of the Office of Public Art, a partnership started this year between the city of Pittsburgh's Planning Department and the Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council.

She cites as an example the bright blue electronic letters that have streamed up the roof of the David L. Lawrence Convention Center since last month, adding a new look to the city skyline.

The art installation, "For Pittsburgh," has received strong reviews, but it comes with a $885,000 price tag, funded by a public-private mix.

Piechocki thinks a smaller project wouldn't match the grandeur of the convention center.

She also argues that government officials don't have to spend more money on capital projects to meet the arts requirement. They just need to find a way to make art a part of their initial plans.

More than 300 cities and about two dozen counties in the United States already set aside money for public art. Since New York City started its program in 1982, it has spent more than $26 million on at least 180 projects, according to the city's Web site.

Pittsburgh has had a 1 percent requirement in place for at least several decades, Planning Director Susan Golomb said. But because of recent financial difficulties, the city hasn't been able to put money into its public art fund account since 2002.

Robinson said he is willing to send the bill back to committee or amend it so council members can vote to exempt specific projects.