Item 12 - AIPP_Resolution_101926.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Art in Public Places Resolution No. 20250306-29 Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment Arts Commission October 19, 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 Alternate compliance fees (donation to public art fund) collected can be utilized for maintenance of the AIPP collection 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 • 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 a benefit from private development Be Well Murals at the Lamar Underpass Contractor: Raasin in the Sun with 6 local artists 5 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 the sponsor department’s roles and responsibilities for routine maintenance *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 6 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 a 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 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 7 Curatorial Services Directive: Allow the solicitation of curatorial services as a delivery model for major projects; and Curatorial services are 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 8 Programmatic & Communication Improvements Encourage Local Participation • Relaunch Prequalified Public Artist Pool • Capacity building public art projects • Artist mentorship workshops • Evaluate LaunchPAD and TEMPO Contract Clarity and 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 Artist Resources: Public & Private Property • Artist workshops – know your rights! • Central webpage with resources • Contract example online • Artist recognition (plaque templates) • Artist business classes Responsive: These updates directly respond to City Council-identified barriers, including long- term maintenance obligations, contract complexity, and risk exposure for local artists. 9 Additional Administrative Changes Additional Administrative & Language Updates Austin Water cap removal • Exploration of alternative funding approaches (via MOU with Austin Water) • Piloting a model for alternate compliance models (e.g., enterprise partnerships) Governance Clarification • City Manager or designee will review and agree with any exemption requests to move forward to Arts Commission and City Council for approval Maintenance & Repair Clarification • Routine Maintenance, such as rinsing, dusting, landscaping, and care of the area around the artwork remains the Sponsor Department’s responsibility. • Repairs and Specialty Maintenance, such as bronze waxing, lighting integrated within the artwork, electronic or technology components, etc., shall be considered AIPP’s responsibility. • Specialty Maintenance shall be approved by the User Authorization Form and documented in the artwork maintenance plan. Parkland Clarification • In calculating the [construction] cost of a project to acquire or develop dedicated parkland, the real property acquisition cost is not deducted 2% Allocation Clarification • Clarify current practice by City of Austin, to align with industry definition of construction cost • Language updates: • 2002: “Construction Cost means the cost of a project to the City” • 2026: “Capital Project Cost means the cost of a project to the City” Nightwing, Dale Whistler 11 NEW: Ordinance Section 4, Funding for Art City Manager Review & Agreement Workflow Sponsor Department Identifies needed % change Sponsor department works with ACME Recommendation presented to City Manager CMO approved recommendation goes to AIPP Panel for consideration Recommendation presented to Arts Commission with Panel’s opinion for consideration Recommendation moves forward as RCA (with or without support from Arts Commission) 12 Chapter 7-2 (Art in Public Places) side-by-side 1985 Ordinance 2002 Ordinance Update 2026 Current Update Version (track-changes in progress) ESTABLISH 1% of the original estimated construction cost of a city construction project (CAP: not to exceed $200,000 per project) UPDATES: - 1% to 2% - Further define construction cost - Remove project cost cap, - Add a project cost minimum $100,000. - Add provision for Arts Commission & Council authority to increase or decrease 2% PROPOSED UPDATES: - Update language from construction cost to Capital Project Cost; industry best practice, - - and more clear for consistent calculation Increase listed eligible deductions to better meet industry definition for “construction cost” Includes City Manager review and agreement prior to Arts Commission and City Council when adjusting 2% higher or lower - Update language to include CMO guidelines review and coordination prior to adoption. How to request exemption per ordinance: How to request exemption per ordinance: How to request exemption per ordinance: No process to exempt eligible projects from the 1%. This limitation does not apply if the council determines, after receiving a recommendation from the Arts Commission, that the project merits or requires a greater appropriation. The City Manager or designee will review and concur with any recommendations that requires a greater or lesser appropriation prior to Arts Commission and City Council Approval. Definition for calculation: Definition for calculation UPDATE: Proposed Definition for calculation UPDATE: "Construction cost" means actual construction cost excluding…: Eligible Deductions Listed: 1. architectural, 2. engineering, 3. administrative costs, 4. costs for fees and permits, 5. and indirect cost, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees “Construction cost calculation” means the cost of a project to the city, [in accordance with deductions outlined in section 7-2-4 – “construction cost calculation”] Eligible Deductions Listed: 1. debt issuance cost, 2. demolition cost, 3. equipment cost, 4. permit and fee cost, and 5. real property acquisition excluding parkland 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). PROPOSED Eligible deductions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. debt issuance cost, demolition cost, equipment cost, permit and fee cost, and inspection cost real property acquisition excluding parkland architectural, engineering, administrative and indirect cost, including interest during construction, advertising and legal fees; planning costs; project management costs Enhanced Processes Internal Process Improvements  Process Improvements Project Documentation Improvements • Updated Calculation Worksheet • Project Charter/Agreement Document • End of CIP AIPP Project Calculation Analysis  Defining the type of Project Delivery for AIPP component (Independent vs. Integral – defined at planning stage of projects by Sponsor Departments)  AIPP included in Planning stage of all CIP by Sponsor Departments  Establishing the AIPP calculation at a consistent point in time for all projects  Posting AIPP Guidelines Online  (Internal) Annual review of CIP projects – ensuring AIPP was captured in all eligible NEW projects Absolute Equality Unity Tunnel photograph by Lauren Slusher 15 NEW: Defining AIPP Project Delivery Method (recommended by AIPP Panel) Independent An independent AIPP Project is executed independently of the project design team and project construction. There is not integration of artwork into the structure and it may be sited separately from the structure. ex: Corridor Projects Integral An integral AIPP Project is one that is fully coordinated with the Building Design and Construction Team. It is supported by and coordinated with that team and becomes integral to the architecture or site of the project itself. ex: Convention Center Duplicated A&E costs for CIP & AIPP Project Shared A&E costs = maximize CIP investment 16 NEW: Integral vs. Independent Integration Agreement on AIPP integrated vs independent PLANNING INTEGRAL Projects Begin DESIGN KICK-OFF DESIGN 30% DESIGN 60% DESIGN 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION Coordination included within Design Consultant Contract Shared costs = max CIP investment INDEPENDENT Projects Begin Duplication of vendors + costs for site work (design, engineering, concrete, utilities, etc.) 17 NEW: AIPP Process/Project Delivery Overlay PLANNING DESIGN KICK-OFF DESIGN 30% DESIGN 60% DESIGN 90% DESIGN CDs CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CELEBRATION 1. SCOPING a. Project Set Up b. Art Call c. Approval: Art Call 2. SELECTING 3. DESIGNING 4. IMPLEMENTING a. Artist Selection b. Approval: Artist c. Artist Contract a. Artist Research (30%) a. CDs b. Concept (60%) c. Final (90%) b. Artwork Fabrication c. Artwork Installation 5. ARCHIVING a. Close Out + Audit b. Intake c. Maintenance/Repair Benefits to Include AIPP at the planning stage: • Eligible Projects close with AIPP investment complete • One City – community understands full investment, engagement, and celebration • One City – one Capital/Eligible Project coordination for delivery • Maximize City investment (identify opportunities for shared cost, like concrete pouring, etc.) • Compliance with AIPP Ordinance is ensured early on, and documented 18 HISTORICAL: AIPP Process/Project Delivery Overlay PLANNING DESIGN KICK-OFF DESIGN 30% DESIGN 60% DESIGN 90% DESIGN CDs CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CELEBRATION 1. SCOPING 2. SELECTING 3. 4. 5. DESIGNING IMPLEMENTING ARCHIVING Risks: • AIPP capacity to meet project goals and timeline • Loss of AIPP and Artist inclusion within design = fewer opportunities to maximize CIP investment • Loss of AIPP collaboration in capital project engagement with community (engagement fatigue / community confusion) • Risk of capital project overruns, including lack of funding to meet 2% compliance 19 NEW: AIPP Calculation Worksheet Workflow WHEN TO CALCULATE AIPP 2% PLANNING DESIGN KICK-OFF ESTABLISH AIPP Calculation DESIGN 30% DESIGN 60% DESIGN 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION CONFIRM AIPP Calculation [Adjust +/-] - If +, add funds to AIPP project If -, AIPP projects dip into their project contingency - AUDIT AIPP COMPLIANCE 20 Getting to the Finish Line Next Steps RCA and Ordinance Adoption (Goal October) • Council Office briefings offered 9/14-9/18 • Economic Opportunity Committee 9/25 • City Council 11/5 Program Guidelines & Policy updates (once Ordinance is approved by City Council) • AIPP takes the Guidelines to AIPP Panel (12/7 goal) & Arts Commission (12/14 goal) for review Process Improvements • Coordination with Austin Capital Delivery Services + Sponsor Departments • Standardized Calculation Formula + Project Templates for enhanced community transparency • Standardized AIPP project inclusion + processes Tau Ceti by Josef Kristofoletti; Austin Convention Center 22 Additional Backup for Ordinance requested by EOC 9/25/26 Ordinance Backup Request 29 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 30 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 31