2025 Update: Zilker Park turns muddy

Three days ago, journalist Kasha Patel in the Washington Post sounded the alarm that climate change is damaging soil worldwide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/03/27/earth-soil-moisture-drying-sea-level-study/

I'm concerned that the Parks Department may not be taking soil preservation seriously enough.

My Zilker Park photos on 03-30-2025 show excessive mud and mulch on sidewalks and roads; mud is entering the drainage culvert in the parking lot above Barton Springs Pool.

Roadways leading up to the Pool are full of mud. It is an indication of poor soil quality and the potential of even more severe soil loss this summer when temperatures rise.

This mud is now entering a drainage culvert near Barton Springs Pool.

Mud on sidewalk is dangerous for bikes.

Meanwhile, excessive mulch is on top of sidewalks -- where it is dangerous for bike riders -- and adjacent to Eliza Springs. The mulch appears to be part of the Zilker Train/APF concession. Maybe APF could be asked to better maintain the area around their concession. 

Several temporary berms appear to be at the end-of-useful-life. They are turning into sources of mulch that may float downhill toward the Springs, possibly entering the drainage culvert during heavy rains.

Entire hillsides continue to show signs of severe erosion after ACL Fest. Is there a permanent solution? Maybe these should be formally terraced to hold soil and provide safe pedestrian steps.

The Polo Field shows soil erosion with mud deposited at its low corners.

Looking at the south side of Barton Springs Road, Zilker Park is showing signs of soil wear-and-tear that would benefit from springtime maintenance, when seedlings might grow. How long can we allow informal pathways to get wider and wider without fences to guide footsteps?

Last, this is Stratford Drive where cars enter the Butler Landfill parking lot. Maybe the Transportation and Public Works Department could remedy?

Several drains appear to be blocked near the train tracks:

EC: Please ask PARD this question: When problems of the Trail are noted, who fixes them? TTC? PARD?

These pics show serious problem areas along the trail. Can PARD include in the Annual Concession Report an explanation of how much money TTC is spending to resolve these types of problems along the trail? Or does TTC only report issues to PARD for PARD to repair? How much money does TTC spend on park-wide O&M? Phase 2 shows no increase of O&M responsibilities for TTC. What exactly will TTC use the concession revenue for? Using it exclusively for "the area around the concession" is inappropriate when there are serious problems of the trail throughout the park.

(Click on any image to see larger view.]

Questions for PARD that could be asked by the public or EC members on or before 02-19-2025

 This is perhaps the most important in the long run, in my opinion:

(0) CONTRACTS:

Will the PARB and EC be partners in designing the future standard contract and RFP’s (the future standard concession contracts) to ensure robust annual price reporting, environmental reporting, environmental investing, and fiscal transparency of concession profits earned and expended? We need to know what the standards are so that we can compare expectations to reality.

Does the TTC’s management role of all concessions in the Park allow them (a) to solicit and approve new vendors? (b) to directly own and operate the current concessions in the Park? In other words, could they kick out current concession vendors to replace them with friends or claim a concession as their own TTC owned and operated business (like the APF Train)?

=====================================

(1) 

Please explain the TTC’s reported loss of nearly $500K in 2023? 

Meaning: Is TTC a reliable fiscal partner to oversee all concession revenue? Will they be tempted to use concession revenue as “unrestricted revenue” rather than Park O&M revenue?

Because — according to the TTC’s Phase 2 Request March 31, 2024 — the TTC’s plan for spending the concession revenue in 2025 allocates $310K to “unrestricted contributions.” (see attached "page 8 of 03-31-2024 TTC POMA Request Phase 2 Notice copy.png" )

Definition: “Unrestricted funds, also known as funds without donor restrictions, are funds the nonprofit is free to spend as management deems appropriate.”

Does that mean that concession revenue is actually “unrestricted” and could be spent on TTC-built assets? Or will concession revenue be deposited into a Park Operations Fund and used exclusively for Park O&M, as required by contract?

=====================================

(2) 

The Reserve Fund represents a protection of the environment or built structures in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as bankruptcy of the TTC or an extreme weather or other destructive event.

When the POMA was signed in 2022, what was the target dollar value of the Reserve Fund after all 4 Zones moved into Phase 3?

Based on that, what should the Reserve Fund balance be for 4 Zones in Phase 2?

Is the TTC’s deposit of $40K sufficient to protect 4 Zones?

=====================================

(3) 

TTC is a builder of TTC-owned assets in the Park, for which they solicit CoA contributions and private donations. However, their POMA explains that they participate in park-wide O&M — not just O&M in the areas surrounding concessions that they manage.

The 2025 Annual Implementation Plan says that the TTC’s obligations for O&M in Phase 2 are UNCHANGED from Phase 1 except that TTC can manage reservations for people to use their TTC-built assets (this is another revenue source, not O&M).

How much money is TTC spending on O&M?

Is the TTC’s budget allocation for Park O&M (operations and maintenance) increasing year-over-year? Or collapsing? 

Please report the TTC’s expenditures for O&M for the past several years.

=====================================

(4)

In December 2023, TTC anticipated Phase 2 in only one Zone (SE) in 2025. Three months later, TTC requested four Zones in 2025. The only change that happens in Phase 2 is: concession revenue goes to the TTC. The 2025 Annual Implementation Plan says that the TTC’s obligations for O&M in Phase 2 are UNCHANGED from Phase 1 except that TTC can manage reservations for people to use their TTC-built assets (this is another revenue source, not O&M).

On what basis was TTC determined to have satisfied the requirements for Phase 2 in all four Zones? Can PARD detail the Phasing milestones TTC accomplished to earn four Zones in one year? Were the TTC Phasing milestones in March 2024 different from those completed by December 2023?

Was the nearly $500K financial loss of TTC in 2023 a factor in the CoA approving Phase 2 in 2025: Giving TTC four Zones of concession revenue to make up for TTC’s financial losses?

=====================================

(5)

Can PARD change the reporting of “Gross Sales” (which includes Sales Tax) to “Net Revenue” to be consistent with temporary concession revenue reporting? This would allow a better eyeball-guess when considering whether the concessions are profitable. At present, the revenue appears overstated because Sales Tax is included. It matters.

=====================================

(6)

PARD already has the IRS report for each vendor. Can PARD include the most recent IRS report for each concession? Perhaps as backup material?

=====================================

(7)

Could PARD include an income and profit statement (P&L) for each vendor? PARD already receives a monthly P&L from TRC. Could PARD simply ask for the annual P&L from each vendor and include it? Maybe in backup? Include account details?

=====================================

(8)

Can PARD report — for each Nonprofit-managed concession — the total concession revenue to the Nonprofit; confirm that this matches the total deposits into the Park Operations Fund, and report the total expenditures on park-wide O&M from the Fund? Examples of TTC's O&M expenditures with photos would be helpful.

=====================================

A message to the Parks Board meeting 10-28-2024

As you may know, I and others have been conducting a citizens review of  the contract for the Trail of Lights Foundation with the City.  While the Trail Conservancy Audit is already underway, this is another, different case where the financials may not be in the public’s interest let alone in the city’s best interests. There may even be fraud and serious violations of the existing contract. 

Interim Director Means received a copy of Audit Request case # 3727. City Manager Broadnax met with us last week to discuss details.

Some of the identified concerns include the following:

1. Potential Overcharging the public for admission and parking in 2023;

2. Potential Incorrect billing-or 

-waiving of Tiered Special Event Maintenance Fees and park-use fees prior to 2023;

3. Potential for Incorrectly charging admission on free nights in 2023.

We calculate that the above issues have resulted in:

1. Potential Undeserved revenue from overcharging attendees of up to $650K in 2023;

2. Potential Un-invoiced nonrefundable park-use fees of $30K annually prior to 2023; 

3. Potential Un-invoiced Tiered Special Event Maintenance Fees of about $43K-$88K annually prior to 2023.

By a 2023 Council Resolution, the potential for continued contract violations has been baked into the business model of the Event until 2032. And no one in the City appears to have asked about the profits being earned or the accrued cash reserves year-over-year.

Bottom line is *In the past 4 years, the Event has earned over $1.4M in profits after all salaries and expenses were paid.

By comparison in just one year 2023, over $136K of park-use fees were waived by the previous PARD Director. 25% of those fees were to be "nonrefundable." The PARD Director's choice to ignore contract terms which she signed annually -- resulting in lost potential revenue to the General Fund -- is appalling.

None of that $1.4 M in profit in the past 4 years appears to have come back to the public or the city. An audit will determine if it was kept by the “non profit.” It is difficult to see how this is in the public interest. Furthermore, there may be conflicts of interest concerning Trail of Lights leadership and the previous PARD Director. The city needs to reexamine what it is getting from this  “partnership.” 

Meanwhile, as we speak, the 2024 Event continues to overcharge for General Admission — charging $8 plus fees instead of $5 max per person —  sells VIP and ZIP admissions on nights required to be 100% free; and continues the program of ZIP admissions to allow paying customers to "skip to the head of the line" which damages social equity.

Details about the audit request are posted at TodayinZilkerPark.com. You have received an email from me today with links.

I urge you to review the information and pass a recommendation at a future meeting to require Trail of Lights Foundation to meet their contractual obligations.  This action is part of your charter to improve the operation of our parks.

I am available to answer questions and to go over the details if you would like. 

Thank you in advance for taking this matter seriously. 

Summary of Audit Request: Trail of Lights and the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department (2024)

I have been researching the Trail of Lights Foundation and PARD's "event oversight" of the Trail of Lights Event.

My audit request — 82 pages — is case #3727 with the City of Austin Auditor. PARD Interim Director Means has a hardcopy. City Manager Broadnax met with me last week to discuss my research and concerns.

The current TOL website shows that the Organizer continues to violate their Legacy Contract Terms.

Let me be clear: The City grants fee waivers for this event based on the premise that the event is operated as a nonprofit and provides affordable admissions for the public. 

By contrast, in the past 4 years alone, the Event earned over $1.4M in profit — after all expenses and salaries were paid. PARD’s former Dir. McNeeley may be personally responsible for over $100K of nonrefundable park-use fees that were not collected in a pre-Event deposit prior to 2023.

In 2024, the Organizer again charges $8 plus a $2.19 handling fee for general admission, rather than the maximum allowed: $5 per person. The Event — by contract — is to admit all visitors free of charge on half of the nights. The contract provides not for “some people admitted free” but “all people admitted free” on half the nights. Instead, VIP and ZIP admissions are sold on all of the FREE nights. ZIP admissions allow people to “skip to the head of the line” damaging social equity. Not all children ages 11 and under are admitted free.

I could go on. These contract violations — with direct support from PARD — are only the tip of the iceberg.

PARD collaborates by producing a Ticket Manifest that fails to report the number of tickets sold at each price-point. I doubt that this Ticket Manifest was produced by the ticketing company on record. In this way, PARD can say that they don’t have a record of the admission prices; it certainly is insufficient data to calculate the Tiered Special Event Maintenance Fee that should have been billed to the Organizer while the Event was not a City Co-sponsored Event, prior to 2023.

In 2023, Council approved a resolution that not only damaged the potential profit of the event, but baked the Legacy contract violations into the event for the next 10 years. I doubt that Council asked to know the annual profit and cash reserves of the Organizer.

What can the Parks Board do? Recommend changes to the operations of the event to protect the promises made to the public in the Legacy Terms. If the Contract with Legacy Terms must be violated, consider recommending that the Event receive a new contract and become a drive-thru only event in future years. I have data to support that. 

Thank you for your interest. More details are below.

--dp

10-28-2024