Smith said he was loath to cut partnered funding, a principle he reiterated during the two days of debate on the draft budget.
"This will tip the sculpture trust over the edge, mark my words. They will not return and they will probably fire a couple of torpedoes at us on the way out the door."
The trust had provided about $2.5 million of public art gifted to the city, Smith said. The city was the minor player in the partnership, providing $50,000 a year and getting hundreds of thousands of dollars back every year.
The sculptures made Palmerston North a little bit different from its provincial colleagues, Smith said.
"We are a university city, we are a cultured city and this adds huge vibrancy to our city. It's not cutting a finger off, it's cutting a hand off."
Cr Susan Baty said the trust had put in a lot of work, money and time to get the city "amazing sculptures".
"It is totally unwise to be cutting this budget and there will be ramifications through this trust that we have with the sculpture trust."
Naylor said she loved the work the sculpture trust had done over the years but it would be difficult for people struggling to buy groceries to see another sculpture going up paid for by their rates.
Cr Brent Barrett said given the trust was receiving public money it would be nice to have public participation in the decision-making process around selecting artworks.
The motion to cut the funding in half was lost five votes to 10 with Johnson, Naylor, Barrett, Renee Dingwall and Bruno Petrenas in favour. Billy Meehan was not at the meeting.
The Public Sculpture Trust was formed in 2006 by members of the local arts and business community who saw an opportunity to enrich central Palmerston North.
Its chairman is Simon Barnett and, according to its website, the current trustees are Tim Mordaunt, Robyn Higgins, Peter Shelton, Sue Weterings and Susanna Shadbolt.
Meanwhile, sculptures of another kind also attracted much debate - council and committee meeting agendas.
Johnson proposed the council save $22,791 a year by stopping printing agendas and making them available online only.
Elected members who felt they couldn't do without a printed agenda could print it themselves. Users of electronic agendas can magnify the text and trees would be saved.
Cr Pat Handcock said not all members of the public were millennials and removing printed agendas came with some risks in terms of making sure the council was inclusive of all people.
Deputy Mayor Aleisha Rutherford said it wasn't an age or an accessibility issue.
"I recall Cr [Lew] Findlay very proudly telling us multiple times that he was the first paper-free elected member. This is a great step for us to take at this stage."
Dingwall said she was a millennial but needed her bits of paper because she lived in an old house with a poor internet connection. If she tried to bring up the agenda at the same time as a Teams meeting her screen would freeze.
"Not everybody has access to all the gadgets that they need and sometimes it is easier for people to use the paper copies."
Cr Orphee Mickalad said to print or not to print was not a millennial or generational thing but a matter of choice and accessibility. He preferred paper copies.
There was much laughter in the chamber when the result came in - eight for and eight against.
Smith noted councillors had taken away the casting vote of the mayor and committee chairpeople. This happened in March 2015.
The status quo remains and councillors who continue to receive paper agendas may or may not choose to make sculptures out of them after digesting the information.