Marla
Evans bends over a mulch pail, scooping out the rich peat and bark onto the base of one of
Congress Avenue’s many trees. Downtown pedestrians walk by, some stopping
briefly to look, and then continue on. People waiting at the bus stop sit on
the bench under the tree’s shade, and watch Evans and her colleague, Arthur
Ozuna, tend to the Mountain Laurels in the nearby large planter decorated with
Texas stars. Ozuna grabs another bag of compost from the back of the old, green
city Parks truck, sets it down, and takes out a cigarette. The 15 or so minutes
Evans and Ozuna spare to talk with a reporter is a well-deserved break — it’s
3pm, and they’ve been at this since early morning, moving all across downtown
to maintain the countless flowerbeds, potted plants, and trees they helped
install. There’s still the whole of Congress Avenue to finish, and another stop
at the beds around the Parks & Recreation Department (PARD) building before
knocking off for the day.
Nothing punctuates our conversation more than the axiom, “I love what I do.”
And nothing makes a person more appreciative of doing what they love than the
prospect of losing it. After seven years each on the job as PARD
horticulturists (by experience, not degree), the long-time city employees Evans
(with 14 years) and Ozuna (23 years) will soon be performing more mundane
tasks, probably mowing and cleaning up trash. As part of this year’s proposed
PARD budget, the four full-time and one part-time positions in the horticulture
unit are being eliminated and transferred to vacant maintenance positions.
The dismantling of the unit is only one among many cuts in a department that
has seen better days financially. No other city department seems more like the
ugly stepchild come budget time than PARD. Since 1986, despite taking on nearly
4,000 more acres of parkland, and 7,000 acres of open space for the Balcones
Canyonlands Conservation Plan, PARD has seen its budget decrease by 2%,
compared to a 23% increase in parkland acquisitions. Not to mention that the
city has grown by almost 200,000 people — many of whom were won over by
Austin’s beautiful landscape. In 1986, PARD’s budget was $19.5 million, close
to what it is today. But from 1987 through 1991, it fell to $15.9 million —
and a backlog in parks and equipment maintenance resulted. This year PARD gets
about $19.2 million, and yes, it is a $100,000 increase over last year’s
allocation, but it doesn’t match the need — each PARD maintenance employee is
now responsible for over 136 acres of the city’s 21,000 acres of parkland.
“There were more than 20 workers doing then [in 1986] what four and a half of
us do today by ourselves,” says Evans. The question now is, who will do it at
all?
The elimination of the horticulture unit is an overall strategy by PARD this
year to focus “only on basic services,” according to spokesperson Jim Halbrook.
“There will be an impact,” he admits, but other Parks employees will care for
some of the plants. Other PARD employees will try to “salvage some of the
vegetation” is how PARD director Jesus Olivares expressed it in a letter to a
concerned citizen last week. Halbrook is reluctant to say that tending to
Austin’s many gardens is no longer considered essential, especially considering
that the unit cares for beautification projects in 75 sites, many of which are
the most visible in the city — Congress Avenue, Zilker Park, Barton Springs
Pool, Auditorium Shores, Woolridge Park, Fiesta Gardens, city street medians,
etc. The unit also performs a fire ant control program in the city’s parks —
an activity that requires state licensing for application of pesticides. Yet
when PARD staff was looking for cuts, Halbrook finally answers, “It was a
program we were willing to start with.”
A vague explanation at best, but Halbrook’s cautiousness is probably earned —
last week’s public hearing on the budget drew out several critics, not just of
the city, but specifically of PARD. Turns out cutting the horticulture unit
amounts to only $7,000 in savings for materials (flowers soil, tools) because
the four-and-a-half employees will be transferred to equal paying vacant
positions that could have been eliminated instead. In general, the department
accepted a pretty lousy budget deal considering all the hoo-hah over the
importance of parks and youth during the council campaigns.
Perhaps PARD should conduct an accountability session with the councilmembers
who talk about the importance of parks and youth on the dais, and with those
who campaigned on basic city services and specifically mentioned parks. At
least one councilmember is “putting [her] money where her mouth is,” as Evans
wryly suggested city politicians do during our conversation. Newbie Beverly
Griffith, as a former Parks Board member, is taking the lead on getting PARD
what it deserves. “I think those four horticulture jobs are extremely important
to keep in terms of economic development, as well as for a sense of place and
our quality of life,” she says. Griffith wants more than that, however. Her
list of wants envisions a parks system with an emphasis on young Austinites.
She wants $1.4 million added to PARD’s budget this year to expand youth and
adult programs, and the transfer to that department of some programs usually
deemed public safety or school district material. Those additions would
include:
* Community outreach after-school programs for ages 12-16 at 15 city recreation
centers. The programs — dealing with nature adventures, cultural arts, health
and fitness, computer training, and tutoring — are aimed at “latch-key”
youths, and are expected to reach 9,000 of them. Estimated cost: $410,000;
* Reinstating the morning hours of operation for six recreation centers, hours
that were eliminated four years ago due to budget cuts. The programs are aimed
at parents and their small children, and would renew the “Tiny Tots” and “Mommy
& Me” programs plus fitness classes. Estimated cost — $328,000;
* Reinstating basic youth and adult recreation services at the St. John’s
neighborhood recreation center. Estimated cost: $50,000;
* Reinstating many of the playground supervision programs available during the
1970s aimed at kids ages 6-12. Estimated cost — $381,000;
* Reinstating the summer teen recreation academy that provides tutoring and
other activities for highschoolers that, like most of the other programs
mentioned above, has been steadily cut down during the last 20 years due to low
funds at PARD. Estimated cost: $126,000.
When Griffith proposed these ideas last week, the gasp among city budget
officials was nearly audible, especially when she suggested that one of the
ways to provide funding would be to give PARD a discount, or even a free ride,
on utility fees such as electric and water and wastewater. PARD pays
approximately $1.5 million in utility fees now, says Griffith council aide John
Gilvar. “In addition, PARD has to pay someone part time now to do a financial
analysis on those fees,” he adds. “We’re not the favorites of [city] staff
right now — we’re asking a lot of questions about increases in other
departments [in light of cuts at PARD]. That’s not to say some of those
increases are not justified, but we want to make sure they’re needed right
now.”
Griffith probably does not have the four votes needed on the council to enact
all $1.4 million of her additions, but at least support is building for the
horticulture unit to be reinstated. Councilmembers Jackie Goodman and Daryl
Slusher are both inclined to keep it. Telephone calls to the others on the
council were not returned.
“Our urban natural beauty is what is driving our economic engine and
what attracts people here and keeps people here,” stresses Griffith. A solid
argument, but the key to Griffith winning this budget battle may lie in her
attempts to connect the parks with the prevention of crime — particularly
juvenile crime which, more than any other category of criminal activity, is on
the rise in Austin. Certainly that kind of focus would give PARD more clout
than it has ever had before. Gilvar notes that Griffith and PARD director Jesus
Olivares worked on her additional programs list together, and that he supports
the transfer of those and other anti-crime youth activities to his department.
Asked what Olivares’ reaction was to Griffith’s suggestions, Gilvar replies,
“He’s been waiting for years for someone to suggest this.”
An important element in making the parks system work for Austin is
maintaining and encouraging the devotion most city workers at PARD feel for
their work. For Darla Evans, the key to keeping PARD employees happy would be a
renewed commitment to the department’s own motto: “Making people happy through
quality programs and beautiful parks.” She says she’ll fight to keep her
horticulture unit together, “not just for my job, but for the service I provide
to the citizens.”
But even she’ll admit to weariness, if only in an abstract way: “People get
tired of fighting, and working hard.” She rubs a soil-caked hand across her
sweaty forehead, “PARD as a whole has been whittled away, yet that’s what draws
people here, dammit.” Her frustration is amplified by the dry heat of the
August day, and the knowledge that without the four of them, Austin just may
not be quite as beautiful next year.
This article appears in August 30 • 1996 and August 30 • 1996 (Cover).