Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Art Deaccession topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City assigns deaccession jury after TxDOT denies exemption for painted crosswalks

Arts Commission (ACME) · June 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following a statewide Texas Department of Transportation directive, the Arts Commission voted to initiate deaccession proceedings for the 'Crosswalk on the Lake' street mural and assigned the Art in Public Places panel as the deaccession jury; Transportation and Public Works warned noncompliance could affect state and federal funding.

The Arts Commission voted to initiate a formal deaccession process for Crosswalk on the Lake after the Texas Department of Transportation denied the city's exemption request for painted street murals.

Jaime Castillo, manager for Art in Public Places, told commissioners that TxDOT issued a directive requiring removal of certain murals on street surfaces statewide and that the city’s exemption petitions for about a dozen locations were denied. Because Crosswalk on the Lake is part of the municipal public‑art collection, staff recommended initiating the deaccession process and asked the commission to designate a quorum of the Art in Public Places (AIPP) panel to act as the deaccession jury. The commission approved that motion.

Assistant Director Lewis Lehi of Transportation and Public Works explained the safety and regulatory basis. He said the requirement traces to uniform traffic control manuals at the state and federal levels and that TxDOT’s memo used compliance language that could affect state or federal funding agreements if not followed. Lehi said the city had pursued an exemption and submitted safety data, but the response denied the exemption and directed removal or fading at designated locations.

Commissioners expressed regret and frustration at being required to remove artworks they found culturally important; Commissioner Smallbach said it felt ‘‘ugly’’ to play a role in destroying public art. Staff said they had sought alternatives and had identified a subset of locations with faded paint that could be allowed to remain, but the overall directive covered the remaining sites.

The recommended administrative path is: (1) AIPP panel (as deaccession jury) meets to consider the artwork and produce a recommendation to the Arts Commission; (2) the Arts Commission makes a recommendation to city council; and (3) council makes the final determination and, if approved, Transportation and Public Works will remove the work from the street in accordance with safety and paving standards. The removal work will involve street‑maintenance crews and thermoplastic crosswalk reapplication where required; TPW staff are tracking costs and expect labor and materials to be the primary expenses.

Staff also said the city is exploring alternative ways to continue celebrating the messages of the murals (planned photo‑ops and community events were mentioned) and to use other city programs—such as the Artbox program and future public‑art calls—to maintain visible public art across the city.