Dozens of city music grants stalled over missing final reports

Sixty recipients of Austin’s Live Music Fund grants are currently in non-compliance with the city’s reporting requirements, leaving more than half a million dollars in hotel tax funds unpaid and effectively frozen, according to data presented at the June 16 meeting of the Austin Arts Commission.

In total, 70 grant contracts across all city arts programs remain in non-compliance, meaning the recipients have failed to submit the required final reports necessary to receive the last 10 percent of their funding and to remain in good standing for future awards. Of those, 60 are tied to the Live Music Fund, a program created to deliver direct financial support to musicians and live music venues.

The discussion was prompted by a transparency request from Commissioner Sharron Anderson, who submitted a detailed list of questions in early June regarding the scope of grant compliance issues and the city’s ability to reclaim or reallocate unused funds. Anderson also raised the possibility of redirecting “leftover” Hotel Occupancy Tax dollars into an emergency funding mechanism for arts groups recently impacted by lost National Endowment for the Arts grants. Staff from the Office of Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment said redirecting money would require City Council approval and may not be possible until the fall.

According to a summary compiled by ACME staff, the noncompliant contracts collectively hold $847,500 in unpaid funds, with $550,000 of that amount coming from the Live Music Fund. An additional $100,000 in grant awards — $70,000 from the Live Music Fund — was fully forfeited by recipients who either declined the grants or failed to respond at all. Per city policy, that money will roll back into next year’s fund allocation and cannot be repurposed between program areas like live music and cultural arts due to statutory restrictions.

The Live Music Fund, which is headed into its third year, has introduced new administrative guidelines for city staff and the Long Center for the Performing Arts, which administers many of the contracts. Officials said that unlike legacy arts programs, many Live Music Fund recipients are first-time grantees unfamiliar with municipal contracting processes and often hard to reach through traditional communication channels like email.

“We’ve heard from many musicians that they don’t regularly check email, and we’re exploring new approaches like text reminders to help them get over the finish line,” said Morgan Messick, assistant director at ACME. “We’re learning how to better support a different kind of grantee community.”

Commissioners voiced concern about the potential reputational damage of these unresolved contracts and called for clear, public-facing updates to dispel rumors of widespread mismanagement.

“There’s a rumor mill in the community, and when people hear about these 60 open music contracts, they don’t always distinguish between different programs,” Anderson said. “Transparency helps everyone.”

Bobby Garza, chief program officer at the Long Center, emphasized that contracting responsibility is shared with city staff and that expediency was the reason the nonprofit holds direct contracts with grantees. He said the arrangement was designed to avoid the red tape that can delay disbursements under the city’s contracting system.

In response to further questioning, staff noted that failure to submit a final report triggers a three-step delinquency protocol, including multiple reminders and eventual contract termination. Once terminated, grantees are placed in “bad standing” and barred from receiving future funds for up to five years. Messick noted clawbacks of already-paid funds are exceedingly rare, with just three instances in the last two decades, according to ACME records.

Commissioners also asked whether any grantees who failed to complete their 2023 contracts had been awarded new funds for 2024 or 2025. Staff confirmed that one organization did score high enough to receive a new award, but it was not issued funding until their outstanding contract was brought into compliance. That process was completed just days before the meeting.

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.