Recommendation Number 20260420-012: Recommendation not to adopt the proposed changes to the Art in Public Places ordinance — original pdf

Recommendation

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 By: Commissioner Maldonado Vote: 10-0 1 of 2 For: Sharron B Anderson, Kirtana Banskota, Felipe Garza, Gina Houston, Keyheira Keys, Faiza Kracheni, Monica Maldonado, Bailey Pownall, Nagavalli Medicharla, Heidi Schmalbach Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Muna Hussaini Attest: Jesús Varela 2 of 2 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 Council expectations that the 2% for art program be funded as intended. The ordinance language must therefore: ● Reflect the full scope of project costs in a way that is consistent with industry standards; ● Result in a true 2% investment in public art; ● Be supported by clear, accessible reporting so that the calculation can be tracked over time. We urge the arts commission not to adopt these changes before we have a clear understanding of the financial impact of redefining project costs on the Art in Public Places budget. AIPP remains one of the City’s primary mechanisms for directly supporting local and regional artists, and its integrity is critical to the broader cultural ecosystem. Kristi-Anne Shaer, Chair Andrew Danziger, Vice-Chair Heidi Schmalbach, Art Commission Liaison Bernando Diaz Camille Jobe Lindsey Millikan Fatima Carbajal