Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division PARB Finance Committee Presentation Aquatics Budget and Staffing February 28, 2022 Aquatics Background and Current State Current Operations • 5 Year-round Pools in Operational • 95 Current Ready To Work Lifeguards • 55 New Applicants • 19 signed up for classes in March • Ready To Work Lifeguards 2019 • February 15th 165 RTW • March 23rd 229 RTW June 2nd 545 RTW • July 25th 865 RTW • • Ready To Work Lifeguards 2020 • February 14th 189 RTW • March 6th 232 RTW • Classes Stopped for 1 year FY22 Expenditure Budget by Category $11.5 million Contractuals 28% $3.3M Personnel 65% $7.4M 35.5 FTEs $714k Commodities 6% Non-CIP Capital 1% ($78k) 2 Aquatics Staffing and Pay Structure TITLE 2021 Staffing and Pay Structure • Temporaries vs. Full Time Employees • Avenues for Temps to see increases in Pay Cashier/Pool Attendant I ISP Registors I Buildings and Ground (Temp) Lifeguard I Lifeguard II Lifeguard III Head Lifeguard Facility Manager Open Water Lifeguard Open Water Head Lifeguard Swim Coach I Swim Coach II Swim Coach III Lifeguard Instructor I Lifeguard Instructor II WSI I (Water Safety Instructor I) WSI II (Water Safety Instructor II) District Supervisor I (Includes ISP & Auditor) District Supervisor II (Includes ISP & Auditor) $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.25 $15.50 $15.75 $16.25 $16.50 $15.25 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $17.50 $18.00 3 Aquatics Options for Enhancing Pay Structure Option A TITLE Cashier/Pool Attendant I Cashier/Pool Attendant II ISP Registors I ISP Registors II Buildings and Ground (Temp) Lifeguard I Lifeguard II Lifeguard III Head Lifeguard Facility Manager Open Water Lifeguard Open Water Head Lifeguard Swim Coach I Swim Coach II Swim Coach III Lifeguard Instructor I Lifeguard Instructor II WSI I (Water Safety Instructor I) WSI II (Water Safety Instructor II) District Supervisor I (Includes ISP & Auditor) District Supervisor II (Includes ISP & Auditor) 2021 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.25 $15.50 $15.75 $16.25 $16.50 $15.25 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $17.50 $18.00 Proposed $15.00 $15.50 $16.00 $16.50 $16.00 $15.00 $15.50 $16.25 $16.50 $17.00 $17.25 $17.50 $16.25 $17.00 $17.50 $17.50 $18.00 $17.00 $17.50 $18.00 $18.50 Option B $500 Summer Completion Bonus Proposed Criteria: -All Temporaries Trained by June 1st -All Temporaries Working Thru August 15th -All Temporaries Working 3 Shifts Per Week (unless otherwise approved) 4 Aquatics Budget Impact Under Resourced Service Expectation Potential …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division PARB Finance Committee Presentation Aquatics Budget and Staffing February 28, 2022 Aquatics Background and Current State Current Operations • 5 Year-round Pools in Operational • 95 Current Ready To Work Lifeguards • 55 New Applicants • 19 signed up for classes in March • Ready To Work Lifeguards 2019 • February 15th 165 RTW • March 23rd 229 RTW June 2nd 545 RTW • July 25th 865 RTW • • Ready To Work Lifeguards 2020 • February 14th 189 RTW • March 6th 232 RTW • Classes Stopped for 1 year FY22 Expenditure Budget by Category $11.5 million Contractuals 28% $3.3M Personnel 65% $7.4M 35.5 FTEs $714k Commodities 6% Non-CIP Capital 1% ($78k) 2 Aquatics Staffing and Pay Structure TITLE 2021 Staffing and Pay Structure • Temporaries vs. Full Time Employees • Temporary compensation Cashier/Pool Attendant I ISP Registors I Buildings and Ground (Temp) Lifeguard I Lifeguard II Lifeguard III Head Lifeguard Facility Manager Open Water Lifeguard Open Water Head Lifeguard Swim Coach I Swim Coach II Swim Coach III Lifeguard Instructor I Lifeguard Instructor II WSI I (Water Safety Instructor I) WSI II (Water Safety Instructor II) District Supervisor I (Includes ISP & Auditor) District Supervisor II (Includes ISP & Auditor) $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.25 $15.50 $15.75 $16.25 $16.50 $15.25 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $17.50 $18.00 3 Aquatics Options for Enhancing Pay Structure Option A TITLE Cashier/Pool Attendant I Cashier/Pool Attendant II ISP Registors I ISP Registors II Buildings and Ground (Temp) Lifeguard I Lifeguard II Lifeguard III Head Lifeguard Facility Manager Open Water Lifeguard Open Water Head Lifeguard Swim Coach I Swim Coach II Swim Coach III Lifeguard Instructor I Lifeguard Instructor II WSI I (Water Safety Instructor I) WSI II (Water Safety Instructor II) District Supervisor I (Includes ISP & Auditor) District Supervisor II (Includes ISP & Auditor) 2021 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.25 $15.50 $15.75 $16.25 $16.50 $15.25 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $16.50 $17.00 $17.50 $18.00 Proposed $15.00 $15.50 $16.00 $16.50 $16.00 $15.00 $15.50 $16.25 $16.50 $17.00 $17.25 $17.50 $16.25 $17.00 $17.50 $17.50 $18.00 $17.00 $17.50 $18.00 $18.50 Option B $500 Summer Completion Bonus Proposed Criteria: -All Temporaries Trained by June 1 -All Temporaries Working Thru August 15th -All Temporaries Working 3 Shifts Per Week (unless otherwise approved) 4 Aquatics Budget Impact Under Resourced Service Expectation Potential Revenue Offset Description Estimated Cost Fee …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division PARB Finance Committee Presentation Summer Camp Staffing February 28, 2022 Summer Camp Program Background and Current State Current Operations • Summer Camp & Playground Programs 28 Locations • • Cultural & Arts, Natural Resources, Community Recreation, and 2019 Registrations: 8,445 Summer Camp & 2,296 Playground Programs 2022 Available: 10,266 Summer Camp & 2,500 Playground Programs Centralized Programs • 100% Capacity • • • • Staff Hiring Requirements 330 Temporary Staff • Recruitment Strategies Staffing and Pay Structure • Temporaries vs. Permanent • Temporary compensation • Marketing/Job Fairs/CIT Program/Referral Program 2 Options to Increase Needed Summer Camp Staffing Option A – Long Term Option B – Short Term $1 Pay Increase for Temporary Program Staff - Competitive Wage - Last Increase Was 2017 from $13.50 - Fiscal Impact: $55,071 per year TITLE 2021 Proposed Activity Leader Activity Specialist Building & Grounds Assistant Cultural Arts Apprentice Display/Lighting Technician Environmental Educator Junior Activity Specialist Office Attendant I Office Attendant II Playground Supervisor I Production Coordinator $15.75 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $16.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.75 $16.50 $15.00 $16.75 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $17.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.75 $17.50 $16.00 $500 Summer Completion Bonus - All Temporary Staff Hired by May 1st - - - Current who did not receive the December bonus are eligible Set Minimum # Hours & Absences unless otherwise approved Fiscal Impact: $165,000 one time covered by Community Recreation & Vacancy Savings
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division PARB Finance Committee Presentation Under Resourced Service Expectations February 28, 2022 FY 2023 Under Resourced Service Expectations Definition: critical needs that are essential to meeting service expectations of our community, but lack resources Prioritization of needs developed by subject matter experts from across the department Direction re: the Board/Commission input process: Focus on efficiency and/or consider options for reallocations of funding from the existing available budget 2 Categories of Prioritized Needs (FY 2023 Estimates) Address Homelessness, Safety and Security Increase Human Resources Support $2.5M ongoing $225K one-time $286K ongoing $7K one-time Advance Equity $744K ongoing $9K one-time Meet Customer Service Expectations for Condition and Quality of Parks and Facilities $1.13M ongoing $589K one-time $2.5M vehicles 3 Address Homelessness, Safety and Security Address Homelessness, Safety and Security - $2.5M ongoing; $225K one-time • Homelessness response and support $1.5M 2 FTEs $200K ongoing • Additional temporary staffing at Barton Springs Pool for increasing safety efforts $506K ongoing • Expand security services department- wide $213K ongoing • Natural Resources Temp Staffing for Park Rangers $300K ongoing; $25K one-time 4 Increase Human Resources Support Increase Human Resources Support - $286K ongoing; $7K one-time • Human Resources support for increased effort in onboarding of staff and training coordinator to ensure appropriate base training related to safety, program delivery, general operating policy/procedures $194K ongoing 2.5 FTEs $5K one-time • Increase in Department’s Diversity Recruiting Strategy and Equity Training $93K ongoing; 1 FTE $2K on-going 5 Advance Equity Advance Equity - $744K ongoing; $9K one-time • Advance Department’s Racial Equity/Planning Focus • Increase Community Engagement $150K ongoing 2 FTEs $3K one-time Services $339K ongoing 3 FTEs $6K one-time 6 Customer Services Expectations Meet Customer Service Expectations/Condition and Quality of Parks and Facilities $1.13M ongoing; $589K one-time; $2.5M vehicles • Increase Athletic Maintenance to increase public access to ball fields • Recreation Management Software (RecTrac) Support • Parks and Facility Maintenance inclusive of general grounds maintenance, HVAC maintenance and Plumbers $255,000 ongoing 3 FTEs $325,000 ongoing 4 FTEs $24,000 one-time $800K ongoing 14 FTEs $568K one-time $2.5 mil vehicles $50,000 ongoing • Cemetery Staff to perform Interments and Reset Cemetery Headstones 7 FY22 Recommendations – Funding Approved • Park Rangers Program Increase $440K 6 FTEs $900K $615K 7.5 FTEs • Summer Camp and Afterschool Programs Capacity Increase • Additional Operations and Maintenance support …
Proposed Agenda Financial Committee 2022 Canceled Budget (Under resourced Needs) January 2022 February 28, 2022 March 21, 2022 April 11, 2022 May 9, 2022 July 11, 2022 a. Presentation on employee and salary structures at PARD, opportunities for cost of living increase, opportunities for accrued leave and sick leave, especially among temporary employees in aquatics and other departments. b. Budget (Division submittals, please note any significant fee changes within 2022-2023 budget); responses to requests for information on Budget from Finance Committee provided at February 28, 2022 meeting a. Any remaining budget issues; b. Parkland dedication – please provide an update on parkland dedication fee amounts available to be spent and acquisitions and expenditures expected in 2022; please describe how land donations are solicited and processed; what are unrestricted donations. c. Unrestricted donations d. Standards for Sale of Land CANCEL a. Parks partners and equity across system; how are the parks partners, especially Pease, Waterloo, affecting equity across the system, how are they contributing to fundraising and development capacity of organizations concerned with park development across the City; if you look at park development as a whole, publicly and privately (through conservancies) financing, are investments equitable distributed? August 8, 2022 CANCEL September 12, 2022 Update on Budget adoption: changes at City Council from PARD Submittal and PARB recommendation. October 10, 2022 CANCEL November 14, 2022 a. Presentation on 2023-2024 budget schedule. b. Set 2023 meeting schedule c. Budget issues: how does maintaining service levels take into account population increases; where d. Annual Report of Activities of Financial Committee
February 25, 2022 Terri Myers, Chair City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Reverend Jacob Fontaine Gold Dollar Building Chair Myers: Preservation Austin exists to empower Austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient, and meaningful community culture through preservation. We write today to express our concerns about proposed changes to the historic Reverend Jacob Fontaine Gold Dollar Building located at 2402 San Gabriel Street. This building is in the former Freedman’s Colony known as Wheatville, founded in 1869 by freedman James Wheat on the edge of the Shoal Creek flood plain. Not only is this property and area historically significant, but the first known owner of the house has a noteworthy history, as well. Had it not been for his efforts, the University of Texas, whose presence threatens to engulf the modest property, might not exist in Austin. Rev. Jacob (Jake) Fontaine was born into slavery in Arkansas in 1808. He was brought to Austin in 1839 as the personal secretary of Texas president Mirabeau B. Lamar. In 1867, after Emancipation, Fontaine founded the First (Colored) Baptist Church in Austin, the first of many churches he founded in Central Texas. In 1876, Fontaine established the Austin Gold Dollar, the first black-owned newspaper in Austin out of his home, the property on San Gabriel. In 1881, Fontaine emerged as one of Austin's leading advocates for the establishment of the University of Texas in Austin, even though it would be decades before Blacks could attend the university. Rev. Fontaine died in 1898 and is buried in Oakwood Cemetery. The City of Austin has declared this building a landmark and the previously proposed changes to the balcony and roof would certainly harm its architectural as well as historic integrity. Preservation Austin supports calls for a rigorous analysis of this landmark’s physical evolution to ensure that any changes respect and preserve its historic fabric with minimal intervention. We appreciate the Historic Landmark Commission’s extreme care with this case given the erasure of Wheatville, and of so many other Black settlements in West and South Austin, as well as continued threats to African American heritage throughout the city. Also, if possible, we would encourage outreach to any of Rev. Fontaine’s descendants who may still live in the area who may not be aware of these proposed changes. And, given the controversial issues related to erasure of African American places and spaces, perhaps this could provide …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Paula Kothmann Friday, February 25, 2022 12:13 PM PAZ Preservation Paula Kothmann 804 Rutherford Place PC_Improvement Values_SF TH vs Downtown HLC Meeting Feb 28, 2022.pdf; THZC7PointsOnePageCommitteeFinal.pdf *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Commissioners: Representing SRCC (~5,000 households): 3. PRESERVATION / DEMOLITION We agree with The Imagine Austin Plan, which advises that comprehensive urban planning and design should protect historic areas and help maintain neighborhood character. However , McMansion FAR limits are not sufficient to discourage the extensive demolition of residences within the central neighborhoods. Preservation incentives, such as more flexibility in regard to ADUs coupled with greater density rather than new development, are a positive step and another tool to avoid extensive demolition Representing myself: 1. I ask for a postponement on 804 Rutherford Place because there was no notice of a public meeting posted at the property. 2. Attached please find improvement values for 804 Rutherford Place, 806 Rutherford Place, and surrounding properties. Improvement values for these two properties more than doubled from 2020-2021 It's my opinion that the huge increase in property tax burden may have prompted the landlords of these properties to sell It's my opinion that if we had some kind of City historic property tax credit for preservation, more landlords would be able to keep their properties and we'd have less demolitions Travis Heights is losing some relatively affordable rentals that require no subsidy from taxpayers The commercial improvement values are laughably low compared to residential, although for landlords their properties are "commercial" landlords don't get the same homestead exemption that protects other residents please consider initiating some kind of preservation incentive with the City to help us preserve our old, affordable rentals to keep Travis Heights diverse i Thank you for your consideration, Paula Kothmann 1 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 2 Outline of the South River City Citizens’ Position 2019 Regarding Proposed Land Use Code Revision 1. SHADES OF TRANSITION ZONES We agree that the City should allow for more housing density along the corridors of Congress Avenue, Riverside, IH-35, Ben White Boulevard, …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Sunday, February 27, 2022 10:22 AM PAZ Preservation Case no. 22-001198 804 Rutherford This message is from Cherie J Deutchman. I live at 1318 Travis Heights Blvd. I object to granting a demolition permit in the referenced case. As the staff report states, the current structure is an example of an eclectic architectural style and the proposed new construction is not compatible with adjacent structures in design. 1
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Melanie Martinez Sunday, February 27, 2022 9:34 PM Subject: 804 Rutherford C.1. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Commissioner, I am so sad to see this charming duplex on a list of proposed demolitions. This is one of those homes that makes people smile and is such a special character in our historic district that people will literally cry if it is torn down. I wish it had been landmarked years ago and hope there is a chance for that now. As you know, Travis Heights-Fairview Park finally achieved our listing as a National Register district after 15 years of struggle. I hate thinking I wasted those years, only to see this happen. Surely, there must be a way to remodel the interior to the new owners’ needs without harming the facade. Ideally, keeping it a duplex would benefit our neighborhood the most, and may even be of benefit to the new owner, should they take advantage of the tax incentives available to them if it’s used as a rental property. Along with our beautiful oaks, the variety of architectural styles and housing types in our community is part of its appeal. I know it is difficult to initiate landmark status, but I believe this property meets all the criteria and is too unique to be demolished. I hope you can help the owner find a way to preserve this gem and help us keep our historic district’s character intact. Thank you, Melanie Martinez 1214 Newning Ave. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Paula Kothmann Sunday, February 27, 2022 12:00 PM PAZ Preservation Paula Kothmann protests for demolitions within SRCC PC_Preservation & Affordable Housing San Antonio.pdf; Preservation_Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit_Annotated.pdf; THZC7PointsOnePageCommitteeFinal.pdf *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Commissioners: 1. PRESERVATION / DEMOLITION We agree with The Imagine Austin Plan, which advises that comprehensive urban planning and design should protect historic areas and help maintain neighborhood character. However, McMansion FAR limits are not sufficient to discourage the extensive demolition of residences within the central neighborhoods. Preservation incentives, such as more flexibility in regard to ADUs coupled with greater density rather than new development, are a positive step and another tool to avoid extensive demolitions. Please see my protests and reasons for the following properties to be reviewed by you at the 2/28/2022 meeting: C.1. 804 Rutherford Place – Travis Heights – Fairview Park National Register District – Postpone: no sign notifying public of this meeting This property was a duplex rental. Fair market value rental income is about $50K gross and the taxes in 2020 were $17,354.38, over 33% It's no wonder that landlords sell, displacing tenants and diminishing diversity in urban neighborhoods! The landlords sold the property about May 2021, after learning about the appraised value, which rose a staggering $205,287 from 2020 to 2020, about 145%. I believe that if landlords had some tax incentives such as those offered in San Antonio, see attached, they might have held on to their property. Or maybe the City could help the tenant buy the property? Preservation_Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit_... To help protect y ou r priv acy , Micro so ft Office prev ented au tomatic download of this pictu re from the Internet. C.2. 512 E. Monroe Street – Travis Heights – Fairview Park National Register District – Postpone C.8. 700 E. Monroe Street – Travis Heights – Fairview Park National Register District – Postpone To help protect y ou r priv acy , Micro so ft Office prev ented au tomatic download of this pictu re from the Internet. 1 C.9. 1505 Alameda Drive - Travis Heights – Fairview Park National Register District – Postpone: no sign notifying public of this meeting I believe that if owners who want a Historic Landmark Designation were able to apply for one with less of a burden about meeting very stringent criteria, more owners would …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Melanie Martinez Sunday, February 27, 2022 9:50 PM Cc: Subject: Brummett, Elizabeth; PAZ Preservation 1803 Kenwood C.10.1 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Commissioners, As a resident of the Travis Heights‐Fairview Park Historic District, I am opposed to the demolition of 1803 Kenwood. It is an important part of the character of this block and the proposed new building would detract from the character of the entire streetscape. To demolish this Minimal Traditional house would be a sad statement about how little Austin values its historic districts. No, it's probably not a landmark, which doesn't give me hope for saving it, but I wish there was some way the owner could try and understand how their design affects others around them and basically ruins the whole block with its incompatibility? Is there any way this can be reconsidered? Would the residents of Kenwood Street be open to becoming a Local Historic District and is this something the City could help with? I believe there is someone who would love to live in this house just the way it is! Thank you, Melanie Martinez 1214 Newning Ave. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Alex Robinette Friday, February 25, 2022 5:18 PM PAZ Preservation Zilker Clubhouse Case #HR 22-014750-200 Comments *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Alex Robinette 2500 Hatley Dr. Austin, TX 78746 Property owner within 500ft. of the subject property Historic Landmark Commission: I am writing in full support of the proposed improvements to the Zilker Clubhouse. I have lived very close to the clubhouse for 14 years, have been attending events there since I was very young, and often incorporate it in my daily walks, along with Lookout Point and the lower Zilker Nature Preserve Trails. I am also an architect, and very fond of the works by Limbacher and Godfrey. I have thought about this property a lot and subtle improvements that could be made, so I am thrilled that they have been hired to address these needs in a thoughtful way. In particular, I appreciate the way they have brought the entire property into the process by opening up the west and taking note of the lawn and views to the north. This area is a hidden gem that will greatly enhance the experience for visitors. I love the increased connectivity to Lookout Point, and although its wild nature is a big part of the appeal, I’d like to see ways to deter the broken bottles and graffiti, perhaps with cameras, improved signage signaling that this is not a neglected area, and occasional security patrols. One area that was not addressed in the presentation was lighting. Currently there are really terrible unshielded lights on poles in the parking lot that cause a lot of light pollution. I am assuming great care will be taken to provide dark sky compliant lighting. Thank you for searching for a less prominent home for the dumpsters. I like the effort to maintain the natural feel of the parking area, with the obvious 'refined rustic’ improvements. The landscaping is also a lovely addition. I think the gate design provides such a welcoming feel while giving just the right amount of acknowledgement to this historic Austin treasure. I wouldn’t change a thing about the plans. It may seem simple, but they have deftly navigated a list of constraints and needs. I look forward to seeing these improvements! Alex Robinette Rollingwood Resident 1 Board Member, Austin Parks Foundation CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from …
