Item 12_Arts Commission Letter_04.17.26 — original pdf

Backup

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