Item 13 - AIPP_Resolution_CC_Briefing_032026.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Art in Public Places Resolution No. 20250306-29 Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment Art in Public Places | March 2026 Art in Public Places Background Established in 1985 by Ordinance 861009-A to direct the inclusion of works of art in capital projects. Initiated by arts community members, including Annette Carlozzi, modeled after Seattle • • Establishes the Art In Public Places Panel to review projects for recommendations to Arts Commission • 1% of construction project, AIPP allocation not to exceed $200,000 • Excludes architectural, engineering, administrative costs, costs for fees and permits, and indirect cost, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees Updated in 2002 by Ordinance 201031-25 to direct the: Response to inflation, increase in CIP projects in the 1998 bond, increase in staff costs due to market salary adjustments, and growing AIPP collection • Initiated by arts community members, including the AIPP Panel and Arts Commission and support from Margo Sawyer, John Yancey, Ann Graham, Dana Friis-Hansen, Anne Elizabeth Wynn, among many others • REPLACED: Increase to 2% of cost of a project to the city and REMOVED cap • CLARIFIED: Excludes debt issuance cost, demolition cost, equipment cost, permit and fee cost, and real property acquisition excluding parkland. 2 Art in Public Places Additional Background 2023 Arts Commission Recommendation 20230123-10: • Application of City Ordinance Chapter 7-2 (AIPP 2% for Art) to Public Private Partnerships (P3) projects. March 6, 2025 Resolution 20250306-029: • Council initiated • Review Chapter 7-2 and present recommended changes The Gathering Place, Samara Barks 3 Austin is a leader in the field of public art Art in Public Places By the numbers • 40-year-old program • Oldest % for Art program in Texas • 400+ artworks in the AIPP Collection • $20,000,000+ investment • Municipal-owned assets • Arts Commission & AIPP Panel advisory boards Tau Ceti by Josef Kristofoletti; Austin Convention Center 4 How’d we get here? Fall 2024 Interest from AIPP Panel to review Guidelines January 13, 2025 AIPP Panel approves Airport Phase I Artist Selections January 14, 2025 Panel Retreat Establish Guidelines Working Group January 30, 2025 City Council approved Convention Center Deaccessions February 2025 Austin Airport Artist Selections RCA pulled from Council agenda February 4, 2025 Past Matters starts Collection Survey February 24, 2025 Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment created March 6, 2025 City Council Resolution to assess the AIPP Ordinance & Guidelines March 2025 ACME leadership, City Manager, & City Council explore options to save artworks at Convention Center April 7, 2025 AIPP Panel approves Airport Phase II Artist Selection April 22, 2025 Artworks removed from Convention Center May 21, 2025 ACME Creative Reset launches June 5, 2025 City Council item to approve Airport Phase I and Phase II Artist Selections 5 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 6 Summary of Progress Phase 1 (March – May 2025) Internal Review Complete • Policy review • Benchmarking Internal Feedback • • AIPP Panel Working Group identified top priorities • Clarify program procedures • Updating contract terms Improving the artist • selection process • Expand opportunities for artists at all career stages Phase 2 (June – August 2025) Stakeholder Engagement Complete Phase 3 (September-December 2025) Finalized Polices Complete Phase 4 (2026) Adoption & Implementation In-Progress • Focus groups with artists impacted by the removal of their artwork and deaccession, curators, fabricators, and developers • Finalize • Ordinance Adoption recommendations (CC 4/23) • Legal review of proposed ordinance revisions • CMO & Director • Guidelines & Policy Updates (spring) • Launch Open Calls Updates (spring) • Coordination with 17 • CMO Clarification (2% • Develop new Calculation & Maintenance) programming (summer) departments to evaluate feasibility and integration • Continued updates to Arts Commission • Update to City Council 8/8 7 Review Chapter 7-2 (Art in Public Places) Review of Chapter 7-2 (Art in Public Places) and associated program guidelines. AIPP Policies • Ordinance • Guidelines • Acquisition & Deaccession Policy • Loan & Donation Policy • AIPP Panel By-Law Programmatic Reviews • Process and procedures e.g. Convention Center deaccessions, Austin Airport Expansion artist selections • Contract updates, including artist kick-off to understand roles and responsibilities • Artist maintenance plan collaboration • Feasibility study (dollars and labor) Prairie Grass Arch, Calder Kamin 8 Public Art Benchmarking Benchmarked 13-peer cities, to evaluate Art in Public Places 13-peer cities: 1. New Orleans 2. Atlanta 3. Portland 4. El Paso 5. Nashville 6. Denver 7. Seattle 8. Dallas 9. San Antonio 10.Phoenix 11.Chicago 12.Los Angeles 13.New York Key Takeaways: • Percent for Art range from 1% - 2% • Most common eligible project term: Capital Improvement Project • No eligible cost deductions for 9 cities • Maintenance funding is challenging across the board, 4 cities allow limited use % of project dollars Additional Benchmarking: • Population served • Age of public art program • Size of collection • Community Advisory Oversight (commission/committee) • Deaccession Policy • Staff Funding • Public Private Development inclusion 9 Public Art Benchmarking – 13 cities Peer City % for Art Program Age Size of Collection Allowable Deductions Eligible Project Term Maintenance Funding Austin, TX Dallas, TX El Paso, TX San Antonio, TX Atlanta, GA Chicago, IL Denver, CO Los Angeles, CA Nashville, TN 2% 1.5% 2% 1% 1.5% 1.33% 1% 1% 1% New Orleans, LA 1.5% New York, NY Phoenix, AZ Portland, OR Seattle, WA 1% 1% 2% 1% 40 36 19 24 48 47 37 36 25 39 43 39 50 52 400+ 300+ 90+ 600+ 139+ 500+ 400+ 500+ 200+ 400+ 350+ 300+ 460+ 400+ Construction Cost of a Project non-bond Capital Improvement Project non-bond Projects in CIP Program unspecified Capital Improvement Project non-bond Capital Project Improvement Project Capital Improvement Project Capital Project .5% of 1% limited % 1% of 1% 1% of 1% Construction/Capital Project limited % Yes Yes None None None Yes None None None None Yes Capital Project Capital Project None Capital Project Yes Improvement Project None Construction Project public art unspecified non-bond 10% of 2% non-bond 10 Stakeholder Engagement External Engagement Internal Engagement AIPP Panel Working Group • 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 Cross-Departmental Working Group • 17 departments reviewed recommended changes Key Takeaways • Improve program clarity and communications • Clarity around the AIPP program • Define roles and responsibilities • Where to find resources • Simplified visual flowcharts • Info sessions 11 A Look at the Ordinance Details Established in 1985 Updated in 2002 12 A Look at the Ordinance Details Current language Updated language 13 Chapter 7-2 (Art in Public Places) Implementation 1985 Ordinance 2002 Ordinance Update ESTABLISH 1% of the original estimated construction cost of a city construction project [set aside for art] (CAP: not to exceed $200,000 per project) UPDATE: 2% of the construction cost of a project [set aside for art] (No cap, but a minimum project cost budget of $100,000). Arts Commission & Council authority to increase 2% not staff 2025 Department Interpretations 2026 Recommendation INTERPRETATION VARIES: Inconsistent allocation; % varies by project and department (as seen in eCAPRIS) City staff believe they have authority to decrease 2% PROPOSED UPDATES: Terminology alignment for consistent implementation. Delegates authority to City Manager rather than Arts Commission & Council when adjusting 2% higher or lower Definition: "Construction cost" means actual construction cost after deducting: Definition UPDATE: “Construction cost calculation” means the cost of a project to the city after deducting: INTERPRETATION: Generally using industry term “construction cost” vs ordinance definition and listed deductions Proposed Definition: “Capital project cost is the cost of a project to the City after deducting…” 12 items 1% Calculation: construction cost excluding the following allowable deductions: 1. architectural, 2. engineering, 3. administrative costs, 4. costs for fees and permits, and indirect cost, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees 2% Calculation UPDATED: cost of a project excluding the following allowable deductions: 1. debt issuance cost, 2. demolition cost, 3. equipment cost, 4. permit and fee cost, and 5. real property acquisition excluding parkland GENERAL INTERPERTATION: * 5 deductions outlined in the current ordinance (if applicable), plus the 1985 items: 1. architectural, 2. engineering, 3. administrative costs, 4. costs for fees and permits, and indirect cost, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees * Departments independently calculate and input into eCAPRIS (no formulas) PROPOSED allowable deductions: 1. debt issuance cost, 2. demolition cost, 3. equipment cost, 4. permit and fee cost, and 5. real property acquisition excluding parkland 6. architectural, 7. engineering, 8. administrative costs, 9. costs for fees and permits, and indirect cost, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees 10. planning costs, 11. project management costs 12. Inspection costs 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 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 decision tree to collaborate with AFS Redevelopment team for AIPP inclusion Big Chiller Buses by Ann Adame; Austin Convention Center 15 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 into the construction project or donate to the Public Art Fund • Policy updates to incorporate clear definitions • Allow private developers to utilize AIPP’s prequalified artist pool • Partnered with internal City stakeholders to define terms and how to incorporate public art as an option to receive tier-two certification, pending SB840* *SB840 is a major land-use reform bill requiring ADS to update current policies and zoning applications Be Well Murals at the Lamar Underpass Contractor: Raasin in the Sun with 6 local artists 16 Funds for Maintenance Improvement: Allow flexibility for the use of funds for maintenance, relocation; conservation, storage, deaccession, and re-installation of artwork Ordinance + Policy updates • Expand language to allow unused project allocations without legal restrictions to be pooled and used to steward the AIPP collection (relocation, conservation, storage, repairs, etc.)* • Expand language to allow up to 5% for repair and improvements of existing public art without legal restrictions* • Clarify sponsor department’s roles and responsibilities for routine maintenance • Require sponsor departments to provide annual report of artworks in their trust *maintenance is not an eligible expenditure for bond dollars, annual budget requests for needed maintenance allows for flexibility Routine Maintenance (rinsing, dusting, landscaping, and care of the area around the artwork) = Sponsor Department responsibility Artwork Repairs & Restorations (structural repair) = AIPP responsibility 17 Art Placement Flexibility Directive: Allow greater flexibility for the use of funds in the nearby vicinity of projects, or in any publicly accessible or visible areas of properties owned by the City, if it improves public visibility and engagement. For the purposes of this policy, City-owned property includes sites secured through long term easements or controlled by local government corporations including, but not limited to, the Austin Housing Finance Corporation, Austin Public Facility Corporation, and Austin Housing Public Facility Corporation; • Ordinance updates to expand language for artwork to be placed across the city on City- owned property, including long-term easements or controlled by local government corporation • Policy clarifications to pool funding from bond propositions to allow a shared distribution of art across Austin • Remove Austin Water and Wastewater treatment facility cap of $300,000 and restrictions on Austin Energy substations Benchmarking Recommendations: • Pool bond funds to distribute public art opportunities across the city vs each project (San Antonio) • Flexibility of art placement via nexus of place or theme (Seattle) Open Room Austin, R+R Studios, Sand Beach Park 18 Curatorial Services Directive: Allow the solicitation of curatorial services as a delivery model for major projects; and Curatorial services is a tool AIPP already utilizes to plan for major projects while preserving continuity of project goals and inclusion of our community. [e.g., AUS Public Art Plan] Updates to current practice: • Define AIPP “major project”, as a consideration of size of budget, multi- artist opportunity, community impact, etc. • Incorporate “major project” into tiered approach of capacity building for Austin’s local talent Curatorial services includes strategic planning to create a cohesive, engaging experience for the public. Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Meander Wing by Marc Fornes. 2021 19 Programmatic & Communication Improvements Encourage Local Participation • Relaunch Prequalified Public Artist Pool • Capacity building public art projects • Artist mentorship workshops • Evaluate LaunchPAD and TEMPO Artist Resources: Public & Private Property • Artist workshops – know your rights! • Central webpage with resources • Contract example online • Artist recognition (plaque templates) • Artist business classes Contract Clarity & Communication • New standardized pre-execution artist notice outlining rights, responsibilities, and deaccession/relocation processes • New contract exhibit artwork ownership • New standardized contract review • New clear documentation on lifespan of an artwork • New contract expectations in Art Call outreach Responsive: These updates directly respond to Council- identified barriers including long-term maintenance obligations, contract complexity, and risk exposure for local artists. 20 City Council Feedback City Council Briefings • District 5 • District 9 • Mayor • District 8 • District 4 (upcoming) 3/9 3/10 3/10 3/19 3/27 Feedback • P3 inclusion & alignment w/ Council intent • Artwork placement • Local participation • Curatorial Services • Delegation of approvals away from City Council & Arts Commission • Examples of AIPP allocation Two Live by Star, Angel Alcala 21 Next Steps Phase 4 (2026) In-Progress Revised Policy Adoption • Memo to Economic Opportunity Committee • Ordinance Adoption (4/23) • Guidelines and Policy updates May: AIPP Panel & Arts Commission Implementation • Launch Open Calls that incorporate updated policies and programming (spring 2026) • Develop new programs • Community engagement Rayo de Esperanza/A Beacon of Hope: Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Sculpture by Connie Arismendi and Laura Garanzuay 22 Ordinance 7-2 (Art in Public Places) Adoption Request for Council Action: April 23, 2026 Approval of revisions to the Ordinance 7-2 (Art in Public Places) End of the Rainbow by Ion Studios Reflect and Resound by Virginia Fleck Aquifer by LAMA Ventures Water Tower Bike Rack by Alan Knox 23 Examples of AIPP Allocation Calculations across current projects AIPP Allocation Calculation: CIP Budget CIP Budget (cost of the project to the City) Deductions per Ordinance Debt Issuance Demolition Equipment Permit & Fees Real Property Acquisition Eligible Costs AIPP 2% Allocation of Eligible Costs AIPP Allocation (actual) art investment loss Longhorn Dam Bridge example CIP Budget $30,711,565 -$0 -$0 -$0 -$0 -$0 $30,711,565 $614,231 $250,000 -$364,231 25 AIPP Allocation Calculation: CIP Budget Elizabeth Ney example CIP Budget Redbud Trail Bridge example CIP Budget CIP Budget (cost of the project to the City) Deductions per Ordinance Debt Issuance Demolition Equipment Permit & Fees Real Property Acquisition $8,240,116 CIP Budget (cost of the project to the City) -$0 -$0 -$160,719 -$0 -$0 Deductions per Ordinance Debt Issuance Demolition Equipment Permit & Fees Real Property Acquisition Eligible Costs $8,079,397 Eligible Costs $128,565,666 -$0 -$0 -$0 -$1,202,000 -$5,135,626 $122,228,040 AIPP 2% Allocation of Eligible Costs $161,587 AIPP 2% Allocation of Eligible Costs $2,444,560 AIPP Allocation (actual) * $45,076 AIPP Allocation (actual) art investment loss -$116,511 art investment loss $829,100 -$1,615,460 *AIPP provided additional funds to support feasible artwork budget and placement 26 AIPP Allocation Calculation forms Longhorn Dam example Project Budget Form: AIPP inclusion in form to automatically calculate and defined under instructions “all project costs” 27 Thank you for your time. Can we answer any questions?