Austin arts leaders say the city wrongly withheld millions of dollars from the Art In Public Places program for years by using an incorrect formula to determine how much money was distributed.
Since 1985, a portion of funds spent on city capital improvement projects, such as bridges and buildings, has gone to the public art program. But after examining the process over the last year, the arts community grew alarmed, saying the city is not following city code and is giving the program far less than it should.
Austin officials say they’ve been using the same formula for decades and don’t plan to change it. Instead, they want to enshrine the current method in city code and continue a practice that critics say violates rules put in place more than two decades ago.
“The changes proposed are intended to codify what has been the practice for years,” Assistant City Manager Mike Rogers wrote in a statement to Austin Current.
The dispute comes at a time when the city is debating whether to hold a $700 million bond election, much of which would go to capital projects. Bonds largely pay for capital improvement projects that fund the Art In Public Places program.
If Austin wants to paint itself as a city that supports music and arts, it needs to honor its commitments, said Heidi Schmalbach, a member of the City Arts Commission.
“The policy came from decades of public input,” she said. “They don’t just get to decide they’re not going to follow it.”
Embracing Art
More than four decades ago, the city created the Art In Public Places program to incorporate art into capital projects funded by the city. The ordinance deemed that 1% of construction costs be set aside for the arts.
When the code was updated in 2002, it bumped the number to 2%. The fund has paid for more than 400 artworks that span the city.
The program came under scrutiny in March 2025 after $10.6 million in large-scale art projects were slated to be awarded to artists from other states. More concerns arose when it became unclear whether large pieces of art would be removed from or destroyed with the now-razed convention center as it made way for a new facility.
The city launched a review of Arts In Public Places. But when the Arts, the Culture, Music and Entertainment department started digging in, the math didn’t make sense, Schmalbach said.
Under the 2% formula in the current ordinance, the Longhorn Dam Bridge project would have directed $614,231 to Art In Public Places, according to a presentation to the Arts Commission. Instead, the program received $250,000.
The Elisabet Ney Museum renovations would have directed $161,587 to it. It received $45,076.
The Redbud Trail Bridge project would have directed $2,444,560 to it. It received $829,100.
The core
After some investigation by city arts staffers, the reason for the discrepancy became clear: the definition of “construction costs.”
The existing code, passed in 2002, defines construction costs as the cost of a project minus debt issuance, demolition, equipment expenses, real property acquisition and permits and fees.
But the city is not following that formula. Instead, it deducts the code-mandated exemptions, plus architectural, engineering and administrative expenses. That shrinks the pool of money available to the arts program.
That’s how the city has been doing it for years, said Eric Bailey, deputy director of Capital Delivery Services, which runs the city’s capital improvement program. Construction costs means “the cost to build something,” he told the Arts Commission during an April meeting.
“What it seems like to me is that there’s been either an intentional — or probably unintentional — lack of adherence to the ordinance that we have now,” Schmalbach said. “Now that lack of adherence is being used as the rationale to change the policy. It seems to me that [Capital Delivery Services] has a strange amount of influence, in my opinion, over a policy that is for public art.”
“If this body would like to change the way that it’s administered, that’s perfectly fine,” Bailey answered. “Historically, the way that the process has worked is that the 2% was calculated based on construction costs and that’s the interpretation.”
The proposed changes to the ordinance make it easier for local artists to participate and allow program money to be used to maintain and relocate art. While arts leaders say they support those changes, they refused to endorse the plan if it doesn’t abide by the 2002 funding model.
The Art In Public Places panel — which advises the Arts Commission — voted against the proposed changes.
“This is not solely a technical matter,” members wrote in a letter to the Arts Commission. “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 Arts Commission, which advises City Council, also voted against recommending the proposed changes to the Arts In Public Places code.
Despite the arts groups’ objections, the revised ordinance planned to offer to council at its April 23 meeting added the funding formula language that Rogers reiterated the city has been using.
“While those recommendations are important and continue to inform our work, the City also has a responsibility to ensure the ordinance accurately reflects current administrative practice,” said Morgan Messick, assistant director of the Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment department.
Shortly before the meeting, the item was removed for further work.
During its review of the Art In Public Places program, the city compared its funding to 13 other cities with similar funding streams for similar programs. At 2%, Austin was among the highest.
Arts Commission Chair Gina Houston said at the April meeting that it’s disingenuous for Austin to purport to give more to artists than it actually does.
“If we’re going to say we’re a premier program,” she said, “then we have to fund ourselves like a premier program.”
