Arts Commission Regular Meeting of the Arts Commission - This meeting will be held with some members attending IN PERSON and others ATTENDING REMOTELY.
REGULAR MEETING of the ARTS COMMISSION April 20, 2026, at 6:00 PM Austin City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 1001. 301 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Some members of the ARTS COMMISSION may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn- live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than Noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email Jesús Varela at jesus.varela@austintexas.gov or at 512-974-2444. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Gina Houston - Chair, VACANT - Vice Chair, Keyheira Keys, Monica Maldonado, Felipe Garza, Heidi Schmalbach, Kirtana Banskota, Muna Hussaini, Bailey Pownall, Faiza Kracheni, Sharron B Anderson, Nagavalli Medicharla AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Arts Commission Regular Meeting on March 23, 2026 DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Update on actions taken at the April 6th Art in Public Places Panel by Commissioner Schmalbach 3. Update on actions taken at the April 15th Downtown Commission meeting by Commissioner Houston 4. Update on the Downtown Austin Space Activation (DASA) Artist Residency Program, presentation by Cat Carter, DASA Artist Resident 5. Presentation on possible collaboration for expansion of the Latino Artist Access Program by Ivan Davila STAFF BRIEFINGS 6. Staff briefing on ACME-Long Center contract review by Morgan Messick, Assistant Director, ACME. 7. Staff briefing regarding an update on the Hotel Occupancy Tax by Jesús Pantel, Cultural Funding Supervisor. 8. Staff briefing regarding update on the Cultural Arts Funding Programs by Jesús Pantel, Cultural Funding Supervisor. 9. Staff briefing regarding an update on the AACME Funding Programs by Laura Odegaard, Acting Division Manager, AACME. 10. Staff briefing regarding an update on Art in Public Places by Jaime Castillo, Art in Public Places Manager. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 11. Conduct officer elections for Chair and Vice Chair. 12. Approve a recommendation for updates to the Art in Public Places Ordinance, Guidelines and Policies per City Council Resolution No. 20250306-029. Presentation by Jaime Castillo, Art in Public Places …
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Arts Commission Recommendation Number: 20260420-12: Recommendation not to adopt the proposed changes to the Art in Public Places ordinance. Date of Approval: April 20, 2026 Recommendation Council does not adopt the proposed changes to the Art in Public Places (AIPP) ordinance, pending greater clarity on how redefining capital project costs will impact the AIPP budget. Rationale The Arts Commission unanimously voted to follow the Art in Public Places (AIPP) panel recommendation not to approve the proposed changes to the AIPP ordinance (included in attachment). Following AIPP panel, the Arts Commission is supportive of all the recommended revisions with a critical exception: we do not support the proposed change to the capital project cost definition and calculation. It has become clear that, in practice, sponsor departments and capital delivery services have not followed the definition of “construction cost” that is outlined in the current ordinance, currently defined as total project cost, minus five eligible deductions. Eric Bailey, Deputy Director of Austin Capital Delivery Services confirmed that the 2% calculation has in fact been based on “construction costs” interpreted as hard costs only--not including planning and design fees (20-30% of total budget). This is a major discrepancy. The definition of eligible costs is far more important than the term used to describe them. We know from what is written in the current AIPP ordinance (2002 update), from archival documentation of AIPP and Arts Commission meetings from 2002, and from confirmations with people who served on those bodies at that time, that the intent of the ordinance was to have a 2% for art program based on total capital project costs. Moreover, the benchmarking done by AIPP program staff confirm that 70% of the 13 peer cities studied have no allowable deductions in the public art calculations. Despite this industry standard, the current recommendations suggest adding more deductions to the cost calculation. We do not believe this was council’s intent when resolution 20250306-029 was created. The Arts Commission further recommends that the City Council affirm the intent for a true 2% for Art program in Austin by amending the Capital Project Cost Calculation to be defined and implemented as: the full cost of a project (hard and soft costs) to the City after deducting: (1) debt issuance cost; (2) demolition cost; (3) equipment cost; (4) permit and fee cost; and (5) real property acquisition cost. Motioned By: Commissioner Schmalbach Seconded …
Hotel Occupancy Tax Update Austin Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment | April 20, 2026 Hotel Occupancy Tax – March 2026 Approved Budget March Year-to-date H/MOT Penalties & Interest Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax Total Revenue $511,252 $166,777,013 $167,288,265 Transfer to Cultural Arts Fund $15,968,425 $123,045 $2,022,944 $2,145,989 $204,942 $560,590 $80,683,327 $81,243,917 $7,758,794 • Total HOT Collections March 2026 = $2,145,989 • 49% of FY26 Approved Budget of $167,288,265 • Cultural Arts Fund March 2026 = $204,942 2 Hotel Occupancy Collections – Significant Contributing Events • Austin Marathon and Half Marathon • San Antonio Spurs at Moody Center • The ATX Open AUS Passenger Totals: 1,482,483 (February 2026) 3 HOT Cultural Arts Fund – FY26 Progress Approved Budget $15,968,425 CAF Actuals $7,758,794 4 HOT Cultural Arts Fund – Quarterly Comparison $15.65 M $15.57 M $15.34 M $12.9 M 5 Questions? 6
Cultural Arts Funding Update Austin Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment | April 20, 2026 Agenda 1. Contracts & Payments 2. Grant Funded Activities 2 Contracts & Payments Contracts & Payments (as of 4/19/26) FY24 Elevate FY25 Nexus FY25-26 Thrive (Year 1) FY25-26 Thrive (Year 2) Total Contracts Signed & Processed Contracts Test payments issued & verified Payment 1 Issued Payment 2 Issued Payment 3 Issued 230 230 (100%) 230 (100%) 230 (100%) 229 (99%) 190 (83%) 104 103 (99%) 103 (99%) 103 (99%) 39 (38%) n/a 35 35 (100%) 35 (100%) 35 (100%) 32 (91%) 23 (66%) See year 1 35 (100%) 35 (100%) 9 (26%) N/A N/A Total Dist. to date Total Allocation $9,056,250 (98%) $9,265,000 $483,000 (93 %) $520,000 $3,610,000 (94%) $886,500 (23%) $3,850,000 $3,850,000 4 Grant Funded Activities Cultural Funding Grantee Activities Austin Latinx New Play Festival April 23-25 Teatro Vivo (District 9) – Zach Theatre 2026 Rhythm Routes April 25 Dance Africa Fest (District 1) – Blue Moon Dance Co Origin Stories at Esquina Tango May 1 Beerthoven (District 9) – Esquina Tango 6 FY 24-25 Cultural Funding Grantee Activities Space May 2-3 SoCo Women’s Chorus (District 3) – First Austin Church Film in ATX: 4th Annual Film Festival May 3 The Gallery ATX (ETJ) – Hyperreal Film Club Ajanta May 9 Agni Foundation for the Arts (District 3) – East Side Performing Arts 7 Questions? 8
Funding Programs Update Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment | April 20, 2026 Updated Awards ▪ 717 Awards (1,606 applications submitted) ▪ $24 million in grant awards ($67+ million in requests) Austin Live Music Fund Creative Space Assistance Program • 395 awards • $7.03 million • 22 awards • $1.32 million Elevate • 278 awards • $12.6 million Heritage Preservation Grant • 22 awards • $3 million 2 Awardee Status (as of noon on 4/20/26) Program Total Awardees Pre-Contract Phase I Pre-Contract Phase II Finance Form Phase Contracting Phase Ready for Payment Have already attended Pre- Contract Meeting/ received link to watch recording. Pre-Agreement Form not Submitted yet. Pre-Agreement Form submitted and needs COA review/approval; OR need updates from awardee; OR previous contract needs to be closed out. Approved to receive Finance Form; OR Waiting on awardee to verify Test Payment Ready to sign Agreement when available! ALMF Elevate CSAP HPG TOTAL 395 278 22 22 717 13 25 2 1 41 44 142 10 16 212 267 86 7 4 364 71 25 3 1 100 18% 9%2 14% 5% 14% 3 Appeals Process ▪ Funding Appeals Request Form Deadline: March 30th ▪ Only three reasons for an eligible appeal (Appendix C of Guidelines) ▪ Panel Administration error; Conflict of Interest; Reviewer or staff error ▪ 88 Appeals Submitted (4 in Spanish) ▪ Staff Role: ▪ Compiled information/ completed a preliminary analysis ▪ Sent analysis to Appeals Working Group ▪ 6 deemed Eligible to move forward to Appeals Working Group ▪ 1 Austin Live Music Fund; 1 Heritage Preservation Grant; 4 Elevate ▪ Appeals Working Group (2 Arts Commissioners, 2 Music Commissioners): ▪ Met on Friday, April 17th ▪ Action for approval: April 20th Arts Commission meeting 4 Nexus Program Updates ▪ Nexus Program ▪ Application: March 10th - April 16th ▪ 452 applications submitted (8 in Spanish) ▪ $500k available for 75 awards (17% of applications) ▪ $5k and $10k level ▪ Outreach: ~20,242 people reached through multi-lingual postcards, newsletters, community events, and radio placements ▪ 84 people received direct Application Assistance: ▪ 166.5 staff hours of assistance through workshops, office hours, and 1:1 meetings ▪ Next steps: ▪ 15 reviews will be trained next week. Assignments begin May 4th. No panel meeting – it is an independent review of at least 2 reviewers per application, and scores are averaged. ▪ Award announcements mid-June! 5 Next Steps: Process Improvements …
Art in Public Places Resolution No. 20250306-29 Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment Art in Public Places | April 2026 Resolution No. 20250306-029 Directives Policy Updates Include 2% Public-Private Partnerships Encourage 2% Other Private Developments Allow flexible use of funds for artwork care, relocation, and re-installation Art Placement Flexibility Curatorial Services for major projects Programmatic Updates Communication Updates Address obstacles to local participation Clearly explain rights & responsibilities to artists Support for artists on private property Engage stakeholders (artwork removal) Chapter 7-2 review and associated program 2 Stakeholder Engagement External Engagement AIPP Panel Working Group + Arts Commission • Community advisory committee of the Arts Commission • Austin community arts professionals in design/architecture and visual arts fields Targeted focus groups and 1-1 conversations • Artists who experienced deaccessions, removals, and relocation of artworks • Curators, fabricators, and developers working in public art Internal Engagement Cross-Departmental Working Group • 17 departments reviewed recommended changes City Council Offices + CMO • Mayor Watson, Mayor Pro Tem Vela, Council Members Alter, Qadri, and Ellis Improve program clarity and communications Key Takeaways • • Clarity around the AIPP program • Define roles and responsibilities • Where to find resources • Simplified visual flowcharts • Information sessions 3 Public-Private Partnership (P3s) Directive: Include public-private partnership capital projects (P3), while exempting affordable housing costs, where applicable, and providing a process for alternative compliance that meets or exceeds City standards • AFS explained what city council referred to as a P3 project is more accurately described as an alternate delivery model that utilizes a Public Facilities Corporation. • Ordinance update requiring capital projects utilizing alternate delivery models (including the use of a Public Facilities Corporation); allocate 2% of project cost (affordable housing exempt) • Policy updates to incorporate clear definitions (Public Facilities Corporation) • Allow alternate delivery models to utilize AIPP’s prequalified artist pool for faster delivery method • Develop a decision tree to collaborate with AFS Redevelopment team for AIPP inclusion Big Chiller Buses by Ann Adame; Austin Convention Center 4 Private Developments Directive: Include a review of public art requirements in other private development regulations and programs, including but not limited to planned unit developments, density bonus programs, and Cultural Districts Alternate compliance fees (donation to public art fund) collected can be utilized for maintenance of the AIPP collection • Ordinance update encouraging private developments to incorporate public art, providing an option to incorporate public art …
City of Austin File ID: xx-xxxx Council Meeting Backup: Date ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 7-2 RELATING TO THE CITY’S ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. City Code Section 7-2-1 (Definitions) is amended to alphabetize the list, revise existing definitions, and add new definitions to read: In this chapter: (1) ART means a unique work of art or an artistically designed art feature that enhances the aesthetics of a building, bridge, streetscape, park, or other project for which funds are appropriated as described in this chapter and includes a mural, sculpture, garden, water feature, or other feature that appeals to the senses or the intellect. (2) [CONSTRUCTION] CAPITAL PROJECT COST means the cost of a project to the City as determined in accordance with Section 7-2-6 ([Construction] Capital Project Cost Calculation). (3) CULTURAL DISTRICTS means districts primarily focused on preserving, promoting, or celebrating the cultural heritage, arts, and creative expression of a community. (4) DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM means a program that provides modifications to Title 25 (Land Development) and other regulatory-related benefits in exchange for community benefits. (5) GUIDELINES means the established process for how the City implements the Art in Public Places program, including but not limited to the selection, purchase, commission, placement, maintenance, and repairs of works of art generated. (6) (7) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) means a development that combines two or more zoning uses on a property. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT means land or property development or redevelopment undertaken on private property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 4/20/2026 9:55 AM Page 1 of 10 COA Law Department 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 City of Austin File ID: xx-xxxx Council Meeting Backup: Date (8) PRIVATE PROPERTY means property or assets owned by individuals, businesses, or organizations that are not controlled by a governmental or public entity. (9) PROGRAM MANAGER means the individual designated in Section 7-2-2 (Art In Public Places Program Manager). (10) PROJECT means a capital project funded in whole or in part by the City: (a) to construct or remodel a building, …
The AIPP Panel unanimously voted not to approve the proposed changes to the AIPP ordinance at this time, pending greater clarity on how redefining capital project costs will impact the AIPP budget. We appreciate the extensive work that has gone into this process over the past year in response to the City Council’s directive. This effort was intended to strengthen the program, bring greater transparency to elements of the public art commissioning process, and better support artists. We are aligned with the proposed ordinance updates, with one exception: the redefinition of capital project costs. The Panel’s priority is to ensure that the AIPP program is funded at a true 2% level in a manner that is transparent, consistent, and aligned with national best practices. The AIPP program was originally established by ordinance in 1985, born from the dedicated advocacy of local artists, institutional leaders, and community supporters who wanted to see the creativity of Austin reflected in our shared built environment. In 2002, the ordinance was revised, again through local advocacy, to increase the allocation from 1 to 2% and to remove certain deductions included in the original framework. We can see this intent not only in the language of the 2002 ordinance but in archival records of past AIPP and arts commission meetings. This intent has been confirmed by community members who served on these bodies at that time. As currently proposed, however, the revised definition of capital project costs may result in a net reduction in funding for AIPP. The Panel has requested transparent accounting of how sponsoring departments have calculated AIPP allocations over the past two decades, but this data has not yet been provided. Based on our current understanding, departments have largely calculated AIPP contributions based on hard construction costs, despite the ordinance outlining allowable deductions from total project cost. If so, the effective percentage allocated to AIPP has been meaningfully below 2%. Moving forward without clarification risks codifying a system that continues to underfund the program. For the Panel, the central question is: What percentage of total capital project spending has historically been allocated to AIPP, and what percentage would be allocated under the proposed framework? Without this information, it is not possible to determine whether these changes advance or undermine the ordinance’s original intent. This is not solely a technical matter; it is a matter of public trust, transparency, and alignment with voter and …
Austin-Bergstrom International Airport West Gate Expansion Sculptural Seating AIPP Project Final Design Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment Art in Public Places | April 20 WGE Sculptural Seating (formerly Playscape) Project Phase Designing (Final) Artist(s) Name Reinaldo Correa Art Commission $445,820 Funding Type CIP Sponsor Dept Austin Aviation (AUS) Managing Dept Austin Aviation (AUS) Council District 2 Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) 3600 Presidential Blvd, Austin, TX 78719 2 WGE Sculptural Seating Overview Project Overview: • Originally scoped as a Playscape for people of all ages in the Austin- Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) West Gate Expansion (WGE) • When Austin Aviation expressed the need for the WGE to have a play area specifically for children during Concept Design review, the artwork design was reconceived as a playful sculptural seating element in the hold room adjacent to the original play area site Project Goals: • Advance the power of connection by engaging and entertaining young travelers and those who are young at heart • Hands-on infrastructure • Interactive elements with design flexibility and the ability to add new components • Accessible for users of all abilities Eligibility: • Local | Texas | National AUS WGE – Artwork Location 3 WGE Sculptural Seating – Scope of Work Revised Scope of Work: • Primary artwork use is seating, minimum 12 seats • Maintain modularity of artwork design as well as whimsical, artistic elements • Modules loose from floor, movable by 2 people • Materials = comfortable, durable, easily maintained Revised Timeline: • 2024 – Contract Executed + Community Engagement • 2025 – Concept Design Review + Revised Concept Design Review • March-April 2026 – Final Design Review • May-August 2026 – Fabrication • September 2026 – WGE Site Fully Opened + Artwork Installed AUS WGE – Artwork Site 4 WGE Sculptural Seating – Artist Introduction Artwork Examples (if applicable) Reinaldo Correa, Artist Prarie Revival, 2017 5 Community Engagement Community engagement sticker activity at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, November 2024 Community-designed stickers During our on-site engagement, each participant was invited to draw their Austin story using custom stickers, creating spontaneous compositions that captured personal memories, landmarks, music, food, nature, and moments of connection unique to their experience of the city. These layered sticker drawings became a powerful visual archive of Austin as seen through many lenses. This collected imagery is now translated into a dynamic graphic language that are integrated via vinyl expressions applied to the top …
Eligible Appeals – Working Group Report Executive Summary Overview A total of 88 appeals were submitted across ACME funding programs (84 in English, 4 in Spanish). This report covers only those 6 Appeals identified as eligible based on ACME’s formal appeal requirements outlined in Appendix C: Appeals Process of the Funding Guidelines. Under Appendix C, an appeal may proceed only when it clearly demonstrates: 1. Panel Administration Error 2. Conflict of Interest 3. Reviewer or Staff Error involving information that was correctly submitted but overlooked or misrepresented Appeals cannot proceed when they are based on reviewer disagreement, funding thresholds, applicant mistakes, guideline disagreement, or submission of new information after the deadline. Process Context All appeal requests were submitted through the official ACME Appeals Form. Per ACME procedure: 1. ACME Staff First-Level Review a. Staff screens each appeal to determine whether it meets one or more of the qualifying grounds under Appendix C. b. Appeals lacking specificity, evidence, or qualifying grounds do not advance. 2. Appeals Working Group Review – April 17 (Friday) a. For appeals that pass staff screening, the Working Group will review cases and staff recommendations. b. The Working Group consists of two Arts Commissioners and two Music Commissioners. c. The group will confirm, modify, or overturn staff’s eligibility determinations, and issue formal recommendations. 3. Report Out to Full Arts Commission – April 20 (Monday) a. The Working Group’s recommendations are presented to the full Arts Commission for a vote. b. Final determinations are then communicated to applicants. This report provides cleaned, standardized language for the Working Group’s review and documentation. Funding impact • ALMF – Scott D. McIntosh: Staff identifies a valid +3 point correction based on documented evidence of artist development; revised score exceeds the award threshold. o Recommend: approve appeal & award $20,000. • Elevate – Artly World; Alyssa Taylor Wendt; Ben Randall; David Pope (Script School): Each shows a qualifying reviewer/staff oversight (e.g., overlooked evidence or materials); however, even with corrections, final scores remain below funding thresholds. o Recommend: approve appeal; outcome unchanged (no award). • Heritage – Esther’s Follies: Written reviewer comments contained a copy paste error (from another program), but verbal remarks and numerical scoring were correct; the adjusted average ‑ still falls below the threshold. o Recommend: approve appeal; outcome unchanged (no award). Case Write Ups 1) Artly World ‑ Program: Elevate Eligible Ground(s): Reviewer error — possible overlook of outreach …
INELIGIBLE APPEALS – WORKING GROUP REPORT Executive Summary Overview A total of 88 appeals were submitted across ACME funding programs (84 in English, 4 in Spanish). This report covers only those appeals identified as ineligible based on ACME’s formal appeal requirements outlined in Appendix C: Appeals Process of the Funding Guidelines. Under Appendix C, an appeal may proceed only when it clearly demonstrates: 1. Panel Administration Error 2. Conflict of Interest 3. Reviewer or Staff Error involving information that was correctly submitted but overlooked or misrepresented Appeals cannot proceed when they are based on reviewer disagreement, funding thresholds, applicant mistakes, guideline disagreement, or submission of new information after the deadline. Process Context All appeal requests were submitted through the official ACME Appeals Form. Per ACME procedure: 1. ACME Staff First-Level Review a. Staff screens each appeal to determine whether it meets one or more of the qualifying grounds under Appendix C. b. Appeals lacking specificity, evidence, or qualifying grounds do not advance. 2. Appeals Working Group Review – April 17 (Friday) a. For appeals that pass staff screening, the Working Group will review cases and staff recommendations. b. The Working Group consists of two Arts Commissioners and two Music Commissioners. c. The group will confirm, modify, or overturn staff’s eligibility determinations, and issue formal recommendations. 3. Report Out to Full Arts Commission – April 20 (Monday) a. The Working Group’s recommendations are presented to the full Arts Commission for a vote. b. Final determinations are then communicated to applicants. This report provides cleaned, standardized language for the Working Group’s review and documentation. Key Findings Across All Ineligible Appeals • Most appeals challenged reviewer opinions or eligibility outcomes — not appealable under Appendix C. • Many applicants misunderstood funding thresholds, program requirements, or their own responsibility to provide sufficient evidence. • Several appeals lacked specific identification of error, cited incomplete or corrupted uploads, or attempted to introduce new information. • No ineligible appeal, if granted, would have resulted in an award because scoring gaps remained too large. Funding Impact Only one case involved a potential scoring correction, but even after considering the adjustment, the applicant would not reach the relevant funding threshold. Thus, none of the ineligible appeals would have resulted in a different funding decision. AUSTIN LIVE MUSIC FUND (ALMF) – INELIGIBLE APPEALS Across ALMF, the majority of appeals did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Appendix C of …
Appeals Working Group – Appeals Recommendations Report Overview The Appeals Working Group met on Friday, April 17, 2026, with the following in attendance: • Arts Commissioner Sharron Anderson • Arts Commissioner Muna Hussaini • Music Commissioner Clarissa Cardenas • Music Commissioner Clayton England Recommendations The Appeals Working Group made the following recommendations: • ALMF – Scott D. McIntosh: o Approve appeal o Approve award of $20,000. • Elevate – Artly World; Alyssa Taylor Wendt; Ben Randall: o Approve appeal o Funding outcome unchanged (no award). • Elevate –David Pope (Script School): o Approve appeal o Funding outcome unchanged (no award). o Further recommendation for staff to investigate if Reviewer bias affected other Reviewer scores • Heritage – Esther’s Follies: o Approve appeal o Funding outcome unchanged (no award).
Art in Public Places Panel Staff Briefings Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment Art in Public Places Panel | April 6, 2026 AIPP Exhibition Open Calls austintexas.gov/AIPP People’s Gallery at City Hall 301 W. 2nd St. Austin, TX 78701 Exhibition will run October 2026 – May 2028 Changing Exhibits at AUS airport 3600 Presidential Blvd, Austin, TX 78719 12 galleries Exhibition will run October 2026 – August 2027 No submission fees. Applications close May 31, 2026 acme@austintexas.gov AIPP Coordinators – Jieun Beth Kim & Brittany Heinchon 2 Item # 2 Staff Briefings April 6, 2026 Blossom Gazes, Yuliya Lanina Beverly Sheffield Pool Shimmer by artist Sun McColgin Pool Grand Re-opening and Artwork unveiling Thursday, April 30, 2026 2:30pm 7000 Ardath St. Austin, TX 78757 AIPP Coordinator – Lindsay Hutchens 4 Dove Springs Health Facility Educate, Motivate, Inspire by artist Amado Castillo III Paloma Pavilion by artist Mai Gutierrez Artwork Celebration! Wednesday, May 6, 2026 4:00pm – 5:30pm 58111 Palo Blanco Ln Austin TX 78744 AIPP Coordinator – Frederico Forte 5 AIPP Resolution No. 20250306-029 6
superwoman records presents superwoman records presents Our mission is simple but urgent: We’re reclaiming the space that split this city in two. We’re highlighting the culture that survived the concrete. And we’re turning everyday residents into archivists of sound, rhythm, and identity. From music and oral histories to live performance and visual art — this project is about giving people the mic, the lens, and the light. Because the stories of East Austin aren’t gone — they’ve just been waiting to be heard. 01 WHAT ISCANDYCOATED 35?This pThis project is a cultural storytelling campaign rooted inroject is a cultural storytelling campaign rooted inrhythm, memory, and reclaiming space.rhythm, memory, and reclaiming space.This project is a cultural storytelling campaign rooted inrhythm, memory, and reclaiming space. 02 KICK OFFKICK OFF@KAZI@KAZI88.788.7KICK OFF@KAZI88.7 03 22 STOP STOP NDND@RICHES ART GALLERY@RICHES ART GALLERY AUSTIN’S ONLY BLACKAUSTIN’S ONLY BLACKOWNED GALLERYOWNED GALLERY2 STOP ND@RICHES ART GALLERY AUSTIN’S ONLY BLACKOWNED GALLERY 04 WATERLOO GREENWAYWATERLOO GREENWAY TAKEOVERTAKEOVERWATERLOO GREENWAY TAKEOVER
Review of Grant Administration Processes and Options Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment Current State 1: Where We Are A look at ACME Grant Administration 1: Where We Are • Past issue with Grants Administration • Relief & Recovery Funding • Call for a 3rd Party • How we work with The Long Center • How we work internally 2: What We Learned 3: Where We Go • Roles for Contract Management at ACME • Tools we used, City of Austin Best Practices, Departments we consulted, and process followed • Findings • Recommendations for improvement on the contract, amendments • What options do we see for how to move forward? • Maintain & Improve • Maintain & External Audit • New 3rd Party Procurement • Fully Outsource Program Management • Fully Bring Program Management in house 3 Past Issues for Cultural Funding Team Volume of Contracts (100+ per staff member) Final Reports + New Contracts at the same time (October) Required Pre-Contract Materials for COA Waiting on DO#s Up to 30 days for Invoice Processing (+ checks only) Bulk of time spent as "enforcers" vs Subject Matter Experts 4 Reviewing Materials takes a lot of time 80 Days Pre-Contract Materials Receive d to first Invoice submitted 40 Days Final Report received to Final Report closed out/ invoice submitted 5 Relief & Recovery: What grants could be. • Working with a Third-Party Administrator sped everything up. • Council directive to program design to funds distributed = Less than 6 Months COA Responsibility Third Party Responsibility • Provide application Questions (simplified) • Weekly meeting for oversight • Pay the administrative fee + grant fee • Create Press Release of Awardees • Create Dashboard for the website • Present to Commissions/ Council • Create Application within Submittable system • Provide all Technical Support • Score all applications & document process • Provide City with a Final List of Awardees • Notify awardees • Collect Award Acceptance/ Financial information • Cut and Send payments to Awardees • Submit a Final Report to the City • Time Spent • Total Applicants/ Awardees • Hours of Support provided • Cost was a flat 5-9% Admin Fee 6 Call for a Third-Party High expectations New HOT- funded grants • LMF & HPG • Elevate, Thrive, Nexus Limited Staffing Procurement Process led by Purchasing Department 7 How ACME works with TLC Create Application Submittable build- out Testing Create all …
