RESOLUTION NO. 20200917-017 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: Council adopts the City's Legislative Program for the 87 th Texas Legislative Session as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. ADOPTED: September 17,2020 ATTEST:?1/ / J U Jannette S. Goodall City Clerk Page 1 of 1 Placeholder: City of Austin skyline CITY OF AUSTIN 2021 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 87TH LEGISLATURE MAYOR & COUNCIL Message fronn the Mayor: The City of Austin looks forward to working with the 87th Legislature to best meet the needs and concerns of Austin residents. In this program you will find the City of Austin's 2021 State Legislative Agenda approved by our City Council. The result of an inclusive process, we believe that this agenda best represents the needs and concerns of Austin residents. It is our intent that this agenda guide our city staff, in coordination with our strategic partners, in their efforts to advocate on behalf of the City of Austin and its residents. We look forward to working together on policies that make Texas, and Texas cities, greater. Mayor Steve Adler Mayor Pro Tem Delia Garza, District 2 Natasha Harper-Madison, District 1 Sabino "Pio" Renteria, District 3 Greg Casar, District 4 Ann Kitchen, District 5 Jimmy Flannigan, District 6 Leslie Pool, District 7 Paige Ellis, District 8 Kathie Tovo, District 9 Alison Alter, District 10 City Manager Spencer Cronk PLACEHOLDER: COUNCIL PICTURE 11Page PLACEHOLDER: GRAPHIC ABOUT AUSTIN AUSTIN AT A GLANCE 21Pa<re2-1 PLACEHOLDER: TEXAS CAPITOL GENERAL LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES The City of Austin's 87th State Legislative Agenda reflects the City's priorities for efficient and cost-effective government services that foster Austin's prosperity, sustainability, and safety. The City of Austin supports legislation that enhances City services, reduces the cost of providing services, prioritizes a prosperous business climate, and improves the quality of life for its residents. The City of Austin opposes legislation that strips Austin residents of their right to self-governance, increases taxpayer costs for City services that residents rely on, undermines the principle of home rule, negatively affects the City's financial ability to act in the best interest of its residents, or imposes on Austin taxpayers the burden of paying for State mandates or collecting revenues for the State. To that end, the City has adopted certain legislative priorities and authorizes the City Manager and the City's professional Intergovernmental Relations team to protect interests critical to preserving the principle …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Appeal of the Parkland Dedication Requirements for 4802 S. Congress (SP-2019-0600C) Parks and Recreation Board January 2021 Scott Grantham Principal Planner Parks and Recreation Department 1 Overview • Consider an Appeal by an Applicant of Director’s Denial of Request to Pay Fee in Lieu • PARD is requiring land dedication. The developer prefers to pay fee in lieu. • PARD Recommendation to Parks and Recreation Board and Planning Commission: Support PARD's request for land dedication and deny the applicant’s request, to pay fee in lieu (of land dedication) for this site plan. • Code Context • Site Plan Context • Application of Code Criteria • Other Factors • Recommendation to Planning Commission 2 Code Context • City Code 25-1-605 (B) lists criteria for PARD’s requirement to dedicate parkland vs. pay fee in lieu. • City Code 25-1-605 (F) indicates that PARD’s decision may be appealed to the Land Use Commission, and that PARD shall first present the case to the Parks and Recreation Board for a recommendation. • Applicant has appealed the decision. 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 • Green outline roughly shows PARD’s requirement for Parkland, as a Fee Simple Dedication. • Blue outline roughly shows PARD’s requirement for a Public Access Easement 7 7 Application of Code Criteria City Code 25-1-605 (B) 1. 2. 3. has sufficient acreage to meet the standards for dedicated parkland is located within the Deficient Park Area Map; is adjacent to existing parkland; 4. under the Parkland Dedication Operating Procedures; is needed to address a critical need for parkland or to remedy a deficiency identified by the Deficient Park Area Map; or 5. would provide increased connectivity with existing or planned parks or recreational amenities. Based on these criteria, PARD must require land, and does not have the authority to accept fee in lieu. 8 8 Application of Code Criteria City Code 25-1-603 (A) Standards for Dedicated Parkland “…land to be dedicated must meet the requirements of this subsection.” (1) Parkland must be easily accessible to the public and open to public view so as to benefit area residents, enhance the visual character of the City, protect public safety, and minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses. (2) On-street and off-street connections between residential neighborhoods shall be provided, wherever possible, to provide reasonable access to parks and open space areas. 9 9 Application of Code Criteria …
Grantham, Scott From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mike McHone <mchone1234@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, December 3, 2020 10:47 AM Grantham, Scott Scott, Randy; 'Mike McHone' 4802 S Congress; SP 2019-0600 C Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Mr. Grantham, This email shall serve as the required notification of the above project’s request for the payment of a “Fee-in-Lieu” payment as compliance with the Parkland Dedication requirement. This site is very irregular with most of the property located behind existing lots on Congress Ave. and adjacent to the existing Williamson Creek Greenbelt. This project’s frontage on Congress is limited and this is the only buildable area. LDC 25-1-603 (A) (1) & (2) requires public accessibility and public view; and on and off street connections between residential neighborhoods to be provided whenever possible to provide reasonable access. This project cannot meet these requirements and is therefore requesting the fee-in-lieu option as provided by the LDC. Best regards, Mike McHone, authorized agent 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
Parks and Recreation Department 200 South Lamar Blvd, Austin, TX 78704 January 8, 2021 Michael McHone Authorized Agent mchone1234@sbcglobal.net Dear Mr. McHone: The Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) is in receipt of your December 3, 2020 request to pay a fee in lieu of dedicating parkland in connection with the pending site plan for the property located at 4802 S. Congress Avenue (Wilder SP-2019-0600C) (the “Site Plan”) This letter serves as a denial of your request. City Code § 25-1-605 governs the Parks and Recreation Department’s (PARD) determination of whether to allow payment in fee in lieu of the dedication of parkland. Specifically, (A) The director [of PARD] may require or allow a subdivision or site plan applicant to deposit with the City a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication under Section 25-1-605 (Dedication of Parkland) if: (1) the director determines that payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication is justified under the criteria in Subsection (B) of this section; and (2) the following additional requirements are met: (a) less than six acres is required to be dedicated under Section 25-1-602 (Dedication of Parkland); or (b) the land available for dedication does not comply with the standards for dedication under Section 25-1-603 (Standards for Dedicated Parkland). Because the land to be dedicated is less than six acres, the Site Plan satisfies the requirements of § 25-1-605(A). Therefore, the question is whether it also satisfies the requirements of § 25-1- 605(B): (B) In determining whether to require dedication of land under Section 25-1- 602 (Dedication of Parkland) or allow payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication under this section, the director shall consider whether the subdivision or site plan: (1) is located within the Deficient Park Area Map; The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Parks and Recreation Department 200 South Lamar Blvd, Austin, TX 78704 (2) is adjacent to existing parkland; (3) has sufficient acreage to meet the standards for dedicated parkland under the Parkland Dedication Operating Procedures; (4) is needed to address a critical need for parkland or to remedy a deficiency identified by the Deficient Park Area Map; or (5) would provide increased connectivity with existing or planned parks or recreational amenities. With regard to the Site Plan, the answer to each of these criteria is “yes”: the Site Plan …
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ARTICLE 4. - APPROVAL OF A NAME FOR A PUBLIC FACILITY OR PROPERTY. § 14-1-31 - DEFINITIONS. In this article: (1) FACILITY includes a City building, structure, or other facility directly used by the public, excluding a police facility under Section 14-1-35 (Procedure for Naming a Police Facility ) and a park facility under Section 14-1-36 (Requirement for Naming or Renaming a Park Facility ). (2) DIRECTOR means the director of the Public Works Department. Source: 1992 Code Section 15-7-18; Ord. 031204-12; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20160324-021, Pt. 1, 4-4- 16 . § 14-1-32 - NAMING POLICY. (A) A feature in a facility may be dedicated to a person to recognize a valuable contribution to the community without naming or renaming the facility in which the feature is located. A plaque recognizing a deserving person may be placed in a facility without naming or renaming the facility in which the plaque is placed. (B) A facility may be named for an individual, living, or dead, or something other than an individual. A facility may be named for an individual only if the individual has provided creditable service to the community and to the City. (C) A facility named for an individual may not be renamed. (D) Naming or renaming a facility must follow the procedure set forth in this article. The renaming of a facility must be initiated by the council or the city manager. (E) If the city has financed the facility with the proceeds of obligations, the interest on which is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the city may reject a name to preserve the exemption from federal income taxation of the interest on the proceeds of the obligations. Source: 1992 Code Section 15-7-19; Ord. 031204-12; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20160324-021, Pt. 1, 4-4- 16 . § 14-1-33 - PROCEDURE FOR NAMING A FACILITY. (A) A person may submit a suggestion for naming a facility or endorse a previously submitted suggestion. A suggestion or endorsement must be submitted to the director as provided by this section. The director may promulgate forms for this purpose. (B) A suggestion for naming a facility must include: 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 …
Naming Timeline Step 1: PARD receives naming application, or construction on a new building begins. Step 2: PARD acknowledges application receipt and confirms whether the application package is complete or not (PARD must include fee and estimated cost of renaming with confirmation ). If application packet is complete, then… If application packet is incomplete, then… Step 3: Within five days, PARD informs PARB of the application and proposed name. Step 3: Applicant has 90 additional days to complete application or it expires. It can be resubmitted anytime and the timeline starts over at Step 1. Step 4: 90-day clock begins for PARD to complete community engagement and prepare presentation for Board approval. Step 5: Within 30 days of Step 4, PARD informs applicant of naming/renaming cost and establishes commitment for the payment from the applicant. Step 6: After the completed 90-day community engagement, PARD director receives naming nominations, endorsements, and comments. The PARD director has 30 days to review the application and make a recommendation to the PARB chair. Step 7: The Public Hearing is set within the next 90 days. Step 8: PARB hosts the Public Hearing. Step 9: Within 60 days from the Public Hearing PARB submits recommendation to approve or deny the application to Council.
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendation Recommendation Number: 20210126 B3: Recommended Changes to the Naming and Renaming Ordinance 20160324-021 WHEREAS, the current process and timeline for naming or renaming of a park or park facility has caused confusion among applicants and community members interested in providing feedback on a proposed name or name change; and WHEREAS, the current naming/renaming ordinance could greatly benefit in clarity of language, transparency, and process for both Parks and Recreation Department staff and Austin residents; and WHEREAS, the current naming and renaming process has not previously considered equal representation across the city by considering racial, ethnic, gender, and economic disparities in the naming or renaming of a park, park facility, or park feature; and WHEREAS, naming and renaming parks and park facilities after individuals has been a cost and staffing burden to the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, parks and park facilities named after geographical or historical areas are long-term and can aid in directional knowledge of the city; and WHEREAS, the cost associated with renaming a park, park facility, or park feature should be recovered from the applicants to relieve that cost from the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, community engagement during a proposed naming or renaming should be conducted to accommodate wide public participation and be easy for staff to facilitate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Parks and Recreation Board encourages the Austin City Council to incorporate the recommended changes to the Ordinance 20160324-021 in order to make the naming and renaming process more transparent, more efficient, more equitable, and less costly for the Parks and Recreation Department. Date of Approval: _____________________________ Record of the vote: (Unanimous on a 7-0 vote, 4-3 vote with names of those voting no listed) Attest: _____________________________________________ (Staff or board member can sign)
Annual Internal Review This report covers the time period of 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020 (Please note that this is to be completed by the Chair of the board, commission or committee.) Land, Facilities and Programs Committee of the Parks and Recreation Board The Land, Facilities and Programs Committee mission statement (per the City Code) is: to serve in an advisory capacity to the full board on issues of development and programs of the public parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities and the general welfare of the parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. 1. Describe the board’s actions supporting their mission during the previous calendar year. Address all elements of the board’s mission statement as provided in the relevant sections of the City Code. 2020 Overview The Land, Facilities, and Program Committee of the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Board met a total of two times in 2020. The committee met in June, and November. January 2020 LFPC was cancelled due to lack of quorum. February 2020 LFPC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items March 2020 LFPC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. April 2020 LFCP was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. May 2020 LFPC was cancelled due to lack of quorum. June 2020 LFPC made a recommendation to the Park and Recreation Board for approval to recommend to the City Council for adoption of the Master Plan for John Trevino Jr. Metropolitan Park at Morrison Ranch. Action Taken: A motion to approve this item on the non-consent agenda and move it to full Board for review carried 4 members to approve with Committee Member Farasat absent. LFPC made a recommendation to the Park and Recreation Board for approval to recommend to the City Council regarding an amendment to the Goodnight Rach Planned Unit Development as it pertains to parkland Action Taken: A motion to approve this item on the non-consent agenda and move it to the full Board for review carried 4 members to approve with Committee Member Farasat absent. July 2020 No LFPC meeting traditionally scheduled during the month of July. August 2020 LFCP was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. September 2020 LFCP was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. October 2020 LFPC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. November 2020 LFPC made a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Board to support a Parkland Improvement and Maintenance Agreement with …
Annual Internal Review This report covers the time period of 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020 (Please note that this is to be completed by the Chair of the board, commission or committee.) Contracts and Concessions Committee of the Parks and Recreation Board The Contracts and Concessions Committee mission statement (per the City Code) is: to serve in an advisory capacity to the full board on issues related to contracts managed by the Parks and Recreation Department, not contracts managed by other departments that would ordinarily go to the City Council for approval because they exceed the dollar amount of the City Manager's authority, or are interlocal agreements. The Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the full board with respect to agreements covered by §8-1-62 of the City Code. The Committee may serve in an advisory capacity to the board's representative under §8-1-74 of the City Code with respect to boating concessions. 1. Describe the board’s actions supporting their mission during the previous calendar year. Address all elements of the board’s mission statement as provided in the relevant sections of the City Code. 2020 Overview The Contracts and Concessions Committee (CCC) of the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Board met a total of five times in 2020. The committee met in January, June, August, September and November. January 2020 Discussion on Draft Scope of Work for Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Boating Concession on Lady Bird Lake. Committee members provided feedback on the draft scope of work as it relates to RFP response. Make a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Board to recommend to the City Council the execution of Amendment No 1. to the Parkland Improvement, Management and Operations Agreement for Republic Square Park between the City, Austin Parks Foundation, and the Downtown Austin Parks, LLC. Action Taken: A motion to approve moving this item forward to the full Parks and Recreation Board for action as a non-consent agenda item was passed on a Page 1 of 4 vote of 3-0 with Committee Members DePalma and DiCarlo absent. February 2020 CCC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. March 2020 CCC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. April 2020 CCC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. May 2020 CCC was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. June 2020 Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation …
Parks and Recreation Department Partnerships Presented by Kimberly McNeeley, CPRP, Director January 26, 2021 Parks and Recreation Board Meeting 1 Objectives • Historical Overview of Partnership Progression • Partnership Benefits • Partnership Portfolio and Pathways 2 History 2011 Public Private Partnership Key Advancement 2012-2014 Research and Development 2012-2014 Relationship Building with existing partners and cultivating new relationships 2015 Public Private Partnership Key Advancement 3 History 2017- 2019 Develop Sophistication and Partnership Continuum 2020 Council Resolution 2021 Partnership Formalization 4 Urban Land Institute Report • • • • Explored concepts for entering into partnerships Coalition of Partners participated Conducted an Advisory Services Panel August 25-30, 2019 Report recommended opportunities for the City to increase nonprofit partnerships 5 Resolution 20200312-041 • • • • • • • LRP outlines partnerships as a sustainable strategy PARD has established relationships with partners Goal to maximize public benefit at minimum taxpayer cost Expresses support for partnerships Directs Department to work with nonprofit partners to establish relationships Deliver status reports Bring partnership agreements to Council 6 Public-Private Partnership Benefits • • • • • • Share significant risks Provide funding resources to supplement or replace general fund/capital investment Enhance community engagement Provides non-monetary resources Capacity to seek out innovative projects and partnership opportunites Fundraising capacity/capabilities not available to government • More flexible procurement processes • Potential to give Department additional funding flexibility and meet more community needs • Advocacy 7 PARD Partnership Configurations i p h s r e n t r a P s n o i t a r u g i f n o C Partnership A| Public-Private Partnership Partnership B| Nonprofit Partner Partnership C | Friends Group, Adopt-A-Park Partnership D | Neighborhoods, National Organizations, Local Businesses, Art Organizations, etc. 8 All Partnership Pathways • Established base criteria for various levels • Consistency for like relationships • Ensure partnership stability and capacity • Ensure alignment with Department mission and goals • Organizational governance/constitution • Demonstrated/required inclusivity • Demonstrated/required transparency • Adherence to Established Community Driven Plans • Defined and Agreement upon Public Benefit 9 Maintenance and Operations Agreement 10 Maintenance and Operations Agreement Plus 11 Maintenance and Operations Agreement Plus 12 13 Project/Program Agreement 14 15 Project/Program Agreement 16 17 Project Agreement In Transition 18 Partnership Pathways PARD PARKners • Parkland Stewardship • Adopt-A-Park • Community Activated Park Projects (CAPP) • Cities Connecting Children to Nature 19 20 Questions? 21
RESOLUTION NO. 20200312-041 WHEREAS, Austin is home to nearly 20,000 acres of parks and trails which play an essential role in the city's overall environmental health as well as in the physical and mental health of all Austinites; and WHEREAS, as the City's population continues to grow, these parks and trails are increasingly important to the environmental, health, and mobility needs of the citizens of Austin; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2018, the City adopted a Strategic Direction, including several goals that specifically depend on having strong and sustainable including Economic Opportunity and Affordability, parks and trails systems, Mobility, Health and Environment, and Culture and Lifelong Learning; and WHEREAS, as areas of the City continue to redevelop with denser populations, the acreage of parks also grows due to the critical benefits provided by the City' s Parkland Dedication Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) is currently these the vast majority of responsible for approximately 20,000 acres of parkland across the city; and the care and maintenance of WHEREAS, as the parks and trails, and the number of people who depend the need for innovative partnerships with local nonprofits increases, on them, becomes increasingly worth exploring; and WHEREAS, PARD is committed to partnerships that align with its overall mission, vision, and commitment to benefit the public through the Austin parks system; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department Long Range Plan specifically outlines partnerships as a sustainability strategy for developing, improving, maintaining and programming park spaces; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, PARD works with nonprofit organizations, conservancies, increase community groups, and businesses to enhance and improve parks, recreational and cultural opportunities, and preserve natural areas in Austin; and WHEREAS, the goals of these partnerships are to enhance and expand public use of PARD's grounds and facilities; encourage active recreation and healthy lifestyles; improve environmental stewardship through public participation and education; celebrate arts, culture, and history to build community; and maximize public benefit at minimum taxpayer cost; and WHEREAS, many peer cities such as Dallas, Houston, Chicago, New York City, and others have negotiated partnerships with nonprofit organizations dedicated to the maintenance and stewardship of particular parks; and WHEREAS, nonprofit organizations dedicated to improving parks and open space for the benefit of the community often have the ability to fundraise and other opportunities that municipalities do not have; and WHEREAS, in Austin, some nonprofits have already begun partnering …
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD DIRECTOR’S REPORT DATE: January 2021 PLANNING UPDATES: Central Williamson Creek Greenway Vision Plan: Powered Workshop and Asakura Robinson hosted the final community-wide meeting to present the draft vision plan. The draft vision design is available on the project’s Social Pinpoint. Community feedback is requested, with comments on Social Pinpoint and is open from January 20 through February 17. The plan is tentatively scheduled for Environmental Commission review and Parks and Recreation Board approval in March. District 3 https://cpworkshop.mysocialpinpoint.com/creek-idea-cards/central-williamson-creek-landing-page https://www.centralwilliamsoncreek.net/ On December 17, the partner team led by Community George Washington Carver Museum, Cultural and Genealogy Center Facility Expansion Plan: engagement event for the Facility Expansion Plan occurred on November 21. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) and the consultant team, Smith & Company with Perkins & Will, are making refinements to the building and site plan. Next steps include a phasing and implementation plan. The facility expansion plan is anticipated to begin the approval and adoption process in spring 2021. District 1 https://www.austintexas.gov/CarverATXplanning https://www.speakupaustin.org/carveratx-planning/forum_topics/community-meeting-3 The final A preliminary community survey to gather feedback on existing issues in Zilker Metro Park Vision Plan: the park, as well as needed improvements, is available on the project's website and publicinput.com. The planning team will continue to promote the survey through the first part of 2021. District 8 https://www.austintexas.gov/ZilkerVision https://publicinput.com/ZilkerVision Parkland Acquisitions – upcoming January 27, 2021 City Council Meeting • 3701 Clawson Road, approximately 3.016 acres of land out of and a part of Block 21, Theodore Low Heights Subdivision, an addition to the City of Austin recorded in Volume 445, Page 581, Deed Records, Travis County, Texas, located at 3701 Clawson Road, Austin, Texas from Vista Service Corporation, a Texas corporation, for a total amount not to exceed $2,290,485 including closing costs. PARD is funding this proposed acquisition through fees in lieu collected under the parkland dedication ordinance and the 2018 Bond. The site is gently sloped and wooded with West Bouldin Creek running through. The acquisition will be a neighborhood park in District 5 with a service area extending to District 3. District 5 February 18, 2021 City Council Meeting • 1212 W Slaughter Lane, proposed acquisition is for park and recreation purposes. The property is situated adjacent to Casey Elementary School. It is part of a partnership with the Housing and 1 Planning Department (HPD) to provide a park within walking distance to all residents, …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Parks and Recreation Board Recommendation Number 20210126-B1: Support for City of Austin’s 2020 Legislative Agenda WHEREAS, the City of Austin’s greatest asset is its people who are passionate about their city, committed to its improvement, and determined to see its vision become a reality; and WHEREAS, the percent of registered voters who voted in the past 4 years of city elections exceeded 60 percent; and WHEREAS, an overwhelming majority of registered voters who live in Austin voted for the current Austin City Council representation; and WHEREAS, over 700 Austinites participate and serve on over 60 Boards and Commissions to help shape, and continually improve upon the policies of the City and the lives of its Residents; and WHEREAS, the input provided to the Austin City Council through the City’s Boards and Commissions reflects the will of the community; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Austin that the legislative agenda guide City staff, in coordination with the City’s strategic partners, in their efforts to advocate on behalf of the City of Austin and its residents; and WHEREAS, each year, the Texas Legislature increasingly attempts to pass legislation that negatively impacts the City through preemption or limiting the ability to advocate; and WHEREAS, the 2019 Legislature strongly considered and almost passed S.B. 29 which would have limited the ability of the City to utilize community advocates to effectively advocate on behalf of the policies created and supported by its residents; and WHEREAS, taxpayers and City residents benefit from and need community advocates as a tool that amplifies their voices before the Legislature, Congress, and regulatory bodies; and WHEREAS, a prohibition on community advocacy equates to censorship of Residents’ voices and is detrimental to a representative democracy where all Austinites and Texans have equal opportunities to voice their opinions.
Renaming Ordinance Workgroup Proposed Changes 01/26/2021 Why? • Current process and timeline is unclear • Cost and staffing burden to PARD • Lack of community engagement in naming process Summary of Recommended Changes • Required more robust and transparent community engagement process • Require retirement or death for naming after individuals – 2 years deceased, or 3 years retired • Encourage naming parks and park facilities after geographical, historical, or cultural surroundings • Outlined timeline for the entire naming/renaming application and approval process budget enduring legacy • Require costs to be made known to applicants up-front to protect PARB • Added policy intentions on naming/renaming to ensure a worthy and Moving Forward • Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Board that Austin City Council incorporate the recommended changes to Ordinance 20160324-021 in order to make the naming and renaming process more transparent, more efficient, more equitable, and less costly for the Parks and Recreation Department. Questions and Discussion
Strategic Partnership Agreements that Make Sense Rich DePalma, Parks Board Member 1.26.2021 A Highly Used Parks and Recreation System 2020 The Trust for Public Land ParkScore® -Top 20 Ranking of Total Spending per Resident of the Largest 100 U.S. Cities Rank City Population Public spending Private Spending Public Spending per Resident Private Spending per resident Total Spending (public + private) Total Spending per Resident Percentage Private Dollars of Total Spending 8 New York, NY 8,627,852 $1,708,453,710 304,624 234,844 $61,182,101 $46,366,108 2,744,859 $513,531,861 Seattle, WA San Francisco, CA 3 Minneapolis, MN 4 Arlington, VA 5 Washington, DC Plano, TX Portland, OR 1 2 6 7 9 St. Paul, MN 10 Boise, ID 11 Chicago, IL 12 Cincinnati, OH 13 Virginia Beach, VA 14 Raleigh, NC 15 Austin, TX 16 Long Beach, CA 17 St. Louis, MO 18 Denver, CO 19 Aurora, CO 20 St. Petersburg, FL 721,685 884,353 421,339 230,112 702,321 302,806 657,424 309,137 457,832 471,317 971,752 478,249 310,144 730,640 373,444 263,815 $230,851,261 $233,380,842 $122,789,619 $66,891,952 $162,001,480 $71,057,316 $151,765,560 $54,720,984 $81,289,342 $79,881,194 $136,325,238 $75,987,035 $27,566,148 $112,348,993 $57,957,578 $40,452,317 $320 $264 $291 $291 $231 $235 $231 $198 $201 $197 $187 $177 $178 $169 $140 $159 $89 $154 $155 $153 $22,707,768 $57,539,975 $4,019,527 $0 $12,064,182 $11,247 $1,377,831 $232,430,601 $825,690 $10,753,113 $3,668,809 $33,101 $20,723,939 $545,817 $20,797,473 $1,456,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31 $65 $10 $0 $17 $0 $2 $27 $3 $0 $4 $12 $0 $0 $21 $1 $67 $2 $0 $0 $253,559,029 $290,920,817 $126,809,146 $66,891,952 $174,065,662 $71,068,563 $153,143,391 $1,940,884,311 $62,007,791 $46,366,108 $524,284,974 $58,389,793 $81,322,443 $79,881,194 $157,049,177 $76,532,852 $48,363,621 $113,805,408 $57,957,578 $40,452,317 $351 $329 $301 $291 $248 $235 $233 $225 $204 $197 $191 $189 $178 $169 $162 $160 $156 $156 $155 $153 9.8% 24.7% 13.6% 3.3% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 0.0% 2.1% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2% 0.7% 75.4% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2020 The Trust for Public Land ParkScore® -Top 20 Ranking of Total Spending per Resident of the Largest 100 U.S. Cities Rank City Population Public spending Private Spending Public Spending per Resident Private Spending per resident Total Spending (public + private) Total Spending per Resident Percentage Private Dollars of Total Spending 8 New York, NY 8,627,852 $1,708,453,710 304,624 234,844 $61,182,101 $46,366,108 2,744,859 $513,531,861 Seattle, WA San Francisco, CA 3 Minneapolis, MN 4 Arlington, VA 5 Washington, DC Plano, TX Portland, OR 1 2 6 7 9 St. Paul, MN 10 Boise, ID 11 Chicago, IL 12 Cincinnati, OH 13 Virginia Beach, VA 14 …
