The POMA Model: Is Zilker Park Next?

 By Diana Prechter, Austin parks advocate

This is the third piece in a series on how Austin is handing the operation of its public parks to private nonprofits. The first two looked at The Trail Conservancy and Town Lake Metropolitan Park. This one looks ahead — to the next wave of these deals, and to the park that may be the biggest prize of all: Zilker.

The City has already named who's next

On October 16, 2024, PARD Director Angela Means put it in writing. In a memo to the Parks Board directing an audit of the City's park-nonprofit agreements, she wrote: "In collaboration with the City's Law Department, PARD continues to draft and negotiate partnership agreements. Agreements in development include the Zilker Botanical Garden Conservancy, Fruitful Commons, and the Austin Parks Foundation." So the City is, by its own account, drafting a POMA-style agreement with the Austin Parks Foundation (APF).

Why APF is a different kind of park nonprofit

Most park conservancies are donor-funded. The Central Park Conservancy — the nation's largest — draws about 64% of its revenue from contributions and only about 17% from earned or event income (fiscal year ending June 2025), and its contributions have run between 57% and 81% every year since 2021. APF's revenue mix is nearly the reverse. In 2024, roughly 76% of APF's revenue — about $9.3 million of $12.3 million — came from a single commercial event, the Austin City Limits (ACL) Music Festival, with only about 21% from donations. (Both figures come straight from the organizations' IRS 990s.) APF is, in practice, a festival-revenue operation that also does park philanthropy — the opposite of the donation-funded model the public usually pictures when it hears "parks foundation."

That matters because the POMA model rewards exactly this. The template contractually pushes the partner to maximize commercial revenue from public parkland. A nonprofit whose budget already runs on a giant commercial festival is uniquely built to do that — and uniquely dependent on being allowed to.

The Zilker connection

Zilker is a 351-acre metropolitan park — large, iconic, and long overdue for a park-wide plan. The City tried to make one: the Zilker Park Vision Plan. It was halted in August 2023 (the interim City Manager suspended it after Mayor Watson and several Council members opposed it) and never came to a vote. A major public objection at the time was the fear that a nonprofit/conservancy model would prioritize commercial interests and mega-donors over the broader community and the rest of the park system.

Meanwhile, APF already dominates the commercial life of Zilker Park. ACL — the festival that funds three-quarters of APF's budget — is held in Zilker, now under a 15-year City contract. APF also operates the Zilker Eagle train. And there is a direct organizational link between APF and the community nonprofit forming around Zilker's future: Colin Wallis, the CEO of the Austin Parks Foundation, sits on the board of Zilker 351, the nonprofit created to shape the park's next chapter.

The reasonable inference — and the honest caveat

Put those pieces together — a planned APF partnership agreement, APF's existing commercial hold on Zilker (it runs both ACL and the Zilker Eagle train there), APF's own CEO on the Zilker 351 board, and a 351-acre park that still has no adopted plan — and it is a reasonable concern that APF's anticipated POMA could designate Zilker as the acreage it operates, maintains, and commercializes. 

There's a fiscal motive, too: Zilker's maintenance cost the Parks Department about $2.6 million in FY25, and a POMA would move that expense off its books. To be clear, this is an inference, not a signed contract — Zilker 351 says it "has not yet established a partnership agreement" and that the Parks Department "will continue to manage, operate, and oversee Zilker Park," and no POMA assigning Zilker to APF has been made public. But every one of these pieces is on the public record, and residents deserve a clear answer about whether Zilker is headed toward such a contract before any deal is finalized.

Why it should concern the public

The worry is the same one that stopped the Zilker Park Vision Plan in 2023, now arriving through a different door. If Austin hands O&M and commercial rights over its most-used park to a nonprofit that already earns most of its money by commercializing that same park, the incentives all point one way: more revenue-generating activity on public land, decisions about the park's future made by a private board rather than an accountable public body, and festival and concession dollars flowing to a nonprofit's priorities instead of the City's General Fund and the park system as a whole. 

In Chicago, festival revenue from Lollapalooza is paid to the elected Chicago Park District; in Minneapolis, an elected Park Board runs operations while its foundation only fundraises. Austin is on a path to route that money -- and that authority -- through a private nonprofit instead. The public should get to weigh that trade-off — in the open, and before the contract is signed.

---

Sources

All figures come from the City's own records and the organizations' public filings:

• "Agreements in development" list: Director Angela Means memo to the Parks Board, October 16, 2024. → memo
• APF revenue mix (~76% from ACL): Austin Parks Foundation FY2024 IRS Form 990 (ProPublica).
• Central Park Conservancy revenue mix (FY ending June 2025): Central Park Conservancy IRS Form 990 (ProPublica).
• Zilker acreage (351 acres) and Colin Wallis (APF CEO) on the Zilker 351 board: zilker351.org.
• Zilker Park Vision Plan halted August 2023: Austin Monitor; Austin American-Statesman.
• Zilker Park Maintenance in FY25 = $2.6M. (CoA Expense Open Budget)

Diana Prechter is an Austin parks advocate who researches City of Austin park-partnership agreements through public records.

A Case Study: The Trail Conservancy: A $1 Million Park, a $5 Million Nonprofit (The Trade-Off)

 By Diana Prechter, Austin parks advocate

In a companion piece I described how Austin hands primary responsibility for its public parks to private nonprofits while keeping the land publicly owned — the model the City calls a "Level-A Partnership." Here I want to put real dollars on that trade-off, using the City's own records, for the biggest example of all: The Trail Conservancy (TTC) and the 295-acre Town Lake Metropolitan Park.

What it costs the City to maintain the whole park

In 2022, APR's own partnership program manager, Christine Chute-Canul, put the Parks Department's annual cost of maintaining the entire park in writing to then-Director Kimberly McNeeley. Her figure: roughly $975,349 a year — covering, in her words, "everything except reconditioning of the main trail." Including trail reconditioning, the all-in figure was about $1,121,664. So by the City's own reckoning, the entire park could be operated and maintained for on the order of $1 million a year. That $975,349 is a 2022 figure for maintaining the whole park; under the POMA, TTC is set to become the primary maintenance party for most of it by Phase 3, around 2032.

What the nonprofit takes in

The Trail Conservancy is not a small operation. Its most recent audited financial statements (for the year ended December 31, 2025) report total revenue of $5,147,039 — more than five times the City's own estimated cost of maintaining the whole park. Nearly all of it is grants and contributions (about $4.3 million) plus net special-events income ($640,799). TTC's revenue was higher still in 2024 — $7.8 million — lifted by the Seaholm capital campaign.

Note: The concession revenue alone — the once-public dollars now flowing through TTC from the Town Lake boating concessions — is estimated at roughly $690,000 for FY26, by itself approaching the City's entire annual cost of maintaining the park.

Rising costs for park users

When a nonprofit's business model replaces the Parks Department's, the price the public pays is no longer capped by the department's public-service mandate. The memorial bench is a small but telling example. For years the City ran a Memorial Bench Program that let any resident commemorate a loved one with an engraved plaque on a park bench — and in 2021 the Parks Board even endorsed a Commission on Seniors recommendation to add more of them. At that time, permanently adopting a City park bench cost about $2,400.

Instead of expanding it, the City paused the program. Austin Parks Department has no bench program. Today the only park bench program on the trail is run by The Trail Conservancy — available in just two locations, on boardwalks and bridges. Its cost to dedicate a bench: $15,000 for a 10-year term, or $30,000 in perpetuity. A $2,400 civic gesture has become a $15,000-to-$30,000 one.

Where a portion of it goes

TTC's most recent publicly available IRS Form 990 (fiscal year 2024) lists its highest-paid staff by name:

• Hanna Cofer, Interim CEO (about 5 months) — $144,864 (plus $13,381 in other compensation)
• Kimberly McNeeley, CEO (about 6 months) — $120,130 (plus $5,854)
• Jessica Stewart, Chief Development Officer — $119,838 (plus $11,847)
• Grady Reed, VP of Park Operations — $112,101 (plus $12,539)
• Mandi Thomas, Chief Marketing Officer — $110,905 (plus $12,469)

That is five six-figure earners in a single year (two of them CEOs serving only part of the year during a leadership transition), out of total salaries, compensation, and benefits of $1,900,356.

The 990 also raises a governance flag. TTC reports that it has a written conflict-of-interest policy — yet on the same return it discloses a related-party deal. A paid outside fundraising consultant, Sarah Story ("Sarah Story Consulting"), was paid $100,000 to serve as "Project Campaign Manager" on a fundraising campaign that took in $2.8 million (she was paid $100,000; TTC kept the remaining $2.7 million). She is not on TTC's board or staff — but the 990's Schedule L ("Transactions with Interested Persons") discloses that she is a family member of one of TTC's officers, directors, or key employees, which is what makes the payment a related-party transaction. Separately, a member of TTC's own board of directors, Ashley Fisher, was paid $35,000 — board members are ordinarily uncompensated volunteers. Neither is necessarily improper, but both are exactly the kind of related-party detail the public deserves to weigh — and neither is visible anywhere the City reports on the partnership.

The trade-off, in plain terms

• The Parks Department's cost to maintain the entire 295 acres of Town Lake Metropolitan Park is about $1M a year. To drop this from its budget by 2032, it has awarded a POMA contract to TTC (Park Operations and Maintenance Agreement).
• TTC leverages its POMA authority over the park, including the future Seaholm Intake Facility, to generate over $5M a year, which it spends on unverified "park operations and maintenance," TTC salaries — nearly $2M — and future capital improvements to convert the Seaholm Intake Facility into an event venue to be managed — and monetized — by TTC.
• Commercial boating-concession rent revenue is now paid to TTC, not the General Fund, valued at $690K in 2026.
• A TTC commemorative bench now costs the public $15K–$30K, and there is no commemorative-bench option provided by the City of Austin.

We aren't saving the park money. We're handing over control of it, and the revenue that comes with it, and trusting a private organization to spend it well — while the City hides the details that would let us check.

---

Sources

All figures come from the City of Austin's own records and public filings:

• PARD maintenance-cost figure: 03-18-2022 Chute-Canul email to Director McNeeley (City file C259108). → document
• TTC FY2025 total revenue: TTC audited financial statements, year ended 12/31/2025 (City file C324162).→  document
• TTC executive compensation and Schedule L: TTC FY2024 IRS Form 990 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer).
• Bench program: Sarah Faust email to activists, 2026-06-15; City Memorial Bench Program page; TTC bench-dedication pricing (verified online). →  2021 article  →  TTC website
• FY26 concession estimate (~$690,000). →  document 

Diana Prechter is an Austin parks advocate who researches City of Austin park-partnership agreements through public records.

The Privatization of Austin's Parks: What the City's Own Contracts Show

By Diana Prechter, Austin parks advocate

Austin increasingly hands the day-to-day running of its public parks to private nonprofits. The City calls them "Level-A Partnerships," and the arrangement is easy to miss: the land stays publicly owned, the parks stay open, and the nonprofit's press makes it look like philanthropy at work. But when you read the actual contracts — the Park Operations and Maintenance Agreements, the Annual Implementation Documents, and the City's own payment records — a clearer and more consequential picture emerges. This is how I've come to understand it.

The model, in plain terms

The City has accepted a philosophy of handing over primary operational responsibility for park assets to nonprofits while contractually requiring very little in return — and while keeping the land itself in public ownership. In effect, the deal is:

"Here, you take over primary responsibility for this asset. Make money from it in ways the Parks Department either isn't allowed to or doesn't want to. We'll wrap a City framework around it to help you do good — meetings, Phase Plans, annual plans. We will underfund your park, and you will figure out how to monetize it with all the money-making tools a nonprofit has."

Let me be precise about what "privatization" means here, because it is not a sale. The City keeps title to the land. What it transfers is primary operational and maintenance responsibility, plus the right to earn revenue directly from public assets. That is the shift — not who owns the parks, but who runs them and who profits from them.

Seen from the Parks and Recreation Department's (APR) side, the model lets the department move assets off its own list of primary responsibilities — reducing its day-to-day operational and administrative overhead — while the nonprofit takes on both the burden and the revenue.

The four Level-A partners

Republic Square (Downtown Austin Alliance). The land is owned by the State of Texas; the City holds a long-term ground lease and contributes only a token amount — roughly $7,000 per year (about $105,000 over the 15-year term). APR's direct role is light: a single PARD staff seat on a four-member Management Committee, approval of the Annual Programming Plan, and quarterly financial reports — while the Downtown Austin Alliance runs and monetizes the park through events and programming.

Pease Park Conservancy. PPC holds primary authority for the Kingsbury Commons zone. But the model's fiscal viability is unproven — PPC has so far been unable to produce a Phase 2 Plan acceptable to PARD that would expand its management to more of the 84-acre park.

Umlauf Sculpture Garden & Museum. The City pays Umlauf a flat $200,000 a year for park maintenance and operation — two $100,000 installments, paid like clockwork for roughly a decade (about $2.4 million to date). Every other City payment to Umlauf is for arts/cultural programming or a Zero Waste rebate, not parks.

The Trail Conservancy (TTC). The POMA's own phasing plan is designed so that by Phase 3 — targeted for approximately 2032 — TTC, not the Parks Department, becomes the primary maintenance party for nearly every basic asset class across the 295-acre Town Lake Metropolitan Park, from the trail surface itself to lighting, fencing, benches, and trees, with APR left primary over little more than the restrooms and the trash cans.

What this actually is

This is what I mean by "privatization of the parks": the City is transferring primary responsibility for running publicly-owned parks from its own Parks Department to private nonprofits. And in exchange for assuming that primary responsibility, the nonprofits are allowed to generate revenue directly from public assets — the commercialization of our publicly-owned parks.

It's a trade-off — and sometimes it makes sense

This is a trade-off, and in some cases it appears to make sense. Small, specific assets that serve a relatively narrow slice of Austin — the State-owned Republic Square, or the long-established, financially steady Umlauf Sculpture Garden — may be well suited to nonprofit stewardship.

The practice grows riskier as the scale grows, as the public asset becomes larger or harder to replace, and as the nonprofit's fiscal model becomes less proven: the 295 acres of Town Lake Metropolitan Park, the historic Seaholm Intake Facility riding on fundraising that has already fallen short of its $5 million target, or the 84-acre Pease Park, whose expansion beyond the Kingsbury Commons zone remains unproven.

The public deserves to see the trade-offs — and to weigh in

The public has a right to understand these trade-offs before they are locked in — not just through a single Council vote, but in the phasing, monetization, and roles-and-responsibilities details that currently live in documents like the Annual Implementation Document and its exhibits (including the "LBL Roles" framework the City has withheld from public release). The public should have a say in whether they want their parks commercialized inside the business models of nonprofits.

Two accountability questions

First: when you report a park problem to 311, who actually responds? A broken fence, a downed limb, a failed light — if, by Phase 3 (around 2032), TTC is the primary party for nearly every asset class on the Butler Trail, then for much of Town Lake Metropolitan Park the answer may no longer be the City. The public deserves to know that.

Second, and most important: the City should have a plan for when an asset cannot be adequately managed by its nonprofit partner. The City already reserves this right — in the Seaholm arrangement, APR states it "retains the ability to revisit this arrangement if fundraising milestones are not met, including if another partner/org is identified with the funding and/or capacity to deliver." But reserving the right is not the same as having a plan. The City contemplates failure; it should publish the off-ramp for when failure happens.

---

Sources

All figures in this piece come from the City of Austin's own records, obtained through public information requests:

1. 2026 TTC Annual Implementation Document (City file C307783) — Section 2.1/2.3 Roles and Responsibilities and Reference 4.1, Butler Trail Operations & Maintenance Plan (the Phase 1/2/3 maintenance table); 295-acre park figure. → document
2. Republic Square Parkland Improvement, Management, and Operations Agreement (City file C302770) — State of Texas ground-lease ownership, Downtown Austin Alliance management, Management Committee structure, 15-year term, ~$7,000/year City funding. → document
3. Umlauf Sculpture Garden & Museum Operations & Maintenance Agreement, 2014 (City file C293476) → agreement; and City of Austin payment records (Austin Finance Online) showing the recurring $200,000/year ($100,000 × 2) property-management payments (~$2.4M to date) → payment records · 2015 one-time payment.
4. Seaholm / TTC internal APR emails, April 2026 (City file C317272) — the Director's fundraising-timeline extension and APR's reserved right to "revisit this arrangement if fundraising milestones are not met." → document
5. Pease Park Conservancy Phase Plan records (City files C264039, C268411) — the unproven Phase 2 expansion. → draft plan · PARD feedback · PARD review

Diana Prechter is an Austin parks advocate who researches City of Austin park-partnership agreements through public records.

[2026-02-17] The proposed TxDOT-TTC $25M Boardwalk. My findings and database of Public Information Requests

I would like to wrap up my extensive research into the TxDOT TTC $25M Boardwalk by sharing my summary findings with the public, and by providing a library of primary-source documents (mostly emails, meeting presentations) so that you — the reader — can read the words for yourself and perhaps come to new narratives or conclusions. The “Summary findings” report that you are reading is also available as a PDF document at this link:  [2026-02-18] The proposed TxDOT-TTC $25M Boardwalk. My findings and database of Public Information Requests  DP's Public Information Request DATABASE is organized as a timeline. Please feel free to browse. My audit requests sent to the CoA Auditor • SHARE [02-08-2026] Audit request #1 The Trail Conservancy’s 2022 contract with the City (POMA) should be terminated.pages.pdf • SHARE [REVISED] Audit Request #2 APFC-TxDOT-TTC - TxDOT’s proposed $25M Central Boardwalk and the Austin Public Facility Corporation.pages.pdf • SHARE [01-20-2026] Audit Request #3 4F mitigation amount of $25M for a proposed Central (Hyatt) Boardwalk must be paid to the Parks Department.pages.pdf Hyatt PUD Developer’s plans for the 1LBL Boardwalk: • Related's plans for the Hyatt PUD Developer: 1 Lady Bird Lake

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

Summary findings.

Diana Prechter, 02-18-2026

A timeline begins, 2023: “Trail Conservancy Funding Opportunities”

Several emails were flying around in the spring of 2023 with the subject line: “Trail Conservancy Funding Opportunities.”

The emails were sent to CAMPO 2023-03-16. 

The emails were sent to TxDOT.2023-05-11. 

A huge amount of federal funding was coming to Austin from the $1.2 TRILLION bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law in November 2021. TxDOT tapped into the funding for their CapEX I35 Expansion Project through Central Austin, TX.

The Public Interest Network refers to the CapEX I35 Expansion project as a boondoggle. Their 2023 article noted TxDOT’s “lack of transparency and deceptive planning processes.” 

My PIR evidence shows that TxDOT’s plan to allow the Trail Conservancy (TTC) to construct the Hyatt PUD Developer’s 1LBL Boardwalk with $25M of public funding was accomplished with similar lack of transparency and deceptive planning processes.

Relying on a 2021 mobility study that identified a long-standing pinch-point on the Trail in front of the new Hyatt PUD Development, TTC proposed that TxDOT’s federal funds be used to pay  TTC to build one or two boardwalk projects along the Trail: (1) A Seaholm boardwalk and (2) the Hyatt PUD/One Lady Bird Lake (1LBL Boardwalk).

As the developer of a big capital improvement project on CoA parkland, TTC could realize a massive “Funding Opportunity”: “Off-the-top” percentage fees retained by the boardwalk developer, free CoA parkland valued at $14.8M, free taxpayer money for construction. The only problems were that (a) TTC was not a governmental entity eligible to receive funds directly, and (b) TTC was confined by their CoA 2022 POMA which forced them into a secondary role on all matters of the PARD-owned (Parks Department) Trail.

TTC CEO Heidi Anderson and all TTC Board Members decided to act outside of the confines of the POMA, claiming authority where they had none. TTC’s deception was recognized by PARD Asst. Director Kallivoka in 2024: 

“This statement is misleading, in my opinion. TTC, in effect, eliminated PARD's input and involvement. How on earth!” 

Using their connections to the Hyatt PUD Developer and their board members, TTC began a campaign to act as unregistered lobbyists to the State of Texas. 

A clear example of a TTC unregistered lobbyist:

• Leah Bojo was a TTC Board member. 

• Leah Bojo was also the Hyatt PUD Developer’s agent to the CoA. 

TTC needed to make it look like the Parks Department wanted the boardwalk(s). As a favor to TTC CEO Anderson, PARD Dir. Kimberly McNeeley complied, attending a meeting with TTC and TxDOT on 2023-05-15. The two boardwalks were being considered by TxDOT.

The essential meeting in which McNeeley and TTC presented the Developer’s Boardwalk to TxDOT was held on 05-15-2023: 

• 2023-05-15_TxDOT_PARD_TrailConservancy_ATW_meeting.pdf

(This meeting presentation is fascinating for several reasons, but one issue lingers: The Waller Beach valuation on this date was $32M. The “6F” category required that TxDOT award 6F mitigation of equal value. It is unclear why the final payment to the CoA was $13.2M. See Ref. [6], Unexplained at present: Why did the City negotiate $13.2M for Waller Beach when the appraised value was $32M, and 6F protection required it to be reimbursed to the City at full value?)

After the May 15th meeting, TTC proceeded to negotiate with TxDOT alone.

(The story of McNeeley continues on a track that returns to this timeline in 2024. In Sept. 2023, McNeeley was made fully aware that TxDOT planned to give $25M to TTC if a funding scheme could be invented. Heidi Anderson resigned from her position as TTC CEO. McNeeley applied and was accepted. McNeeley terminated her employment with the Parks Department in May-June 2024; in July, McNeeley had the TTC’s proposed 1LBL Boardwalk on the agenda of the Austin Public Facilities Corporation (APFC). With TTC now represented by CEO McNeeley, the APFC accepted the role of “local governmental intermediary” to keep the funding and control under TTC and out of the hands of PARD.)

Four days later — on 2023-05-19 — the Hyatt PUD Developer’s full boardwalk plans were sent directly from TTC to TxDOT.

• 2023-05-19  Fwd__1LBL_-_Boardwalk_Design_and_Title_Report__1__R  Screenshot internal link to Related landscaping and boardwalk plans.png  

The (Related) Hyatt PUD Developer’s 1LBL Boardwalk plans:

The source document was recently removed from the Developer’s server after I located the link in a PIR and downloaded the plans. Here is my downloaded copy: 

• Related’s plans for 1 Lady Bird Lake Boardwalk and landscaping

By June, 2023, TTC stopped including Parks Department staff in their meetings and emails with TxDOT: TTC was no longer cooperating with PARD but was competing with PARD for mitigation fees. (See Ref [1], Summer 2023, TTC negotiates with TxDOT without the Parks Department)

Pondering: What did TxDOT staff know about the boardwalk? And why were they committed to giving preferential treatment to TTC and/or the Hyatt PUD Developer? Why did TxDOT staff have contempt for COA PARD?

TxDOT knew that it was being asked to fund the Hyatt PUD Developer’s 1LBL Boardwalk: The link they received was the full 1LBL Boardwalk plans direct from the Developer’s document server.

Why did TxDOT staff work so hard to prevent the COA PARD from being involved in a development project on parkland? I see it this way: By controlling the funding through TTC, the Developer could be assured that NO OTHER SOLUTION TO THE PINCH POINT WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. 

I believe that the “TTC connection” is the Hyatt PUD Developer’s preferred solution. If CoA PARD controlled the boardwalk funding, the Developer would be at risk of not having the 1LBL Boardwalk designed and built according to the Developer’s plan. It might not have been built at all if the CoA PARD was successful in parkland dedication negotiations with the —same — Hyatt PUD Developer.

It may be that this was a “Developer deal” negotiated by other parties — such as State Legislators — and advanced under the largesse of the CapEX I35 Expansion project. 

Mayor Watson’s role can only be guessed. He is a strong supporter of the TxDOT I35 Expansion Project:

“For more than a decade, we’ve worked with TxDOT and state leaders to design a project that addresses Austin’s mobility needs and reflects our values.” -Watson

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic-projects/i-35-expansion-project/new-austins-i-35-expansion-receives-federal-approval/

Watson served in the Texas State Legislature from 2007-2020. 

In 2013, Watson served on the Transportation Committee.

Watson was the first to announce publicly that the $25M Boardwalk would be funded by the CapEX I35 Expansion Project:  He announced the $25M Boardwalk after a meeting with State Legislators.

The public should consider: Is the $25M a gift or a bribe?

TxDOT is dangling $25M in front of Council members saying “build this 1LBL Boardwalk or else we are taking our money back.” TxDOT apparently intends the $25M to “break the City’s rules”: Rules that must be followed for selection of parkland projects, for PARD-led community engagement, for RFP’s and for competitive bidding. (See Ref. [5], The PARD Rules for capital improvement projects on parkland)

June-August 2023, TTC was busy scheduling private meetings with TxDOT staff, getting a Boardwalk cost estimate and connecting Leah Bojo to TxDOT.

By this time, TTC was clearly acting outside of its POMA (contract) with the Parks Department.

We know this from 2025 emails: Key staff in the Parks Department (now called "APR" or PARD) Christine Chute-Canul and Liana Kallivoka both sent emails that explained that a new TTC contract would be needed: The current Parks contract had failed to describe TTC's actions with TxDOT or TTC's self-claimed authority to build a Boardwalk without PARD participation.

On 2025-10-26 PARD Asst. Director Kalivoka stated: 

 "I think APR's goal should be to not get involved, and when the project is finished, to have TTC and ATPW take on maintenance. This should not be part of a POMA with APR."

See also 2025-10-26  Chute Canul says TTC is lead, ATPW owner? .pdf

In summer 2023, TTC was acting as if it had a “primary authority over parkland” to lead a capital improvement project on parkland. The 2022 POMA had failed to contain TTC as ‘secondary” in all matters related to the PARD-owned Trail. For this reason, I think that the 2022 POMA should be terminated and re-drafted.

See: SHARE [02-08-2026] Audit request #1 The Trail Conservancy’s 2022 contract with the City (POMA) should be terminated.pages.pdf

By July 2023, TTC’s Heidi Anderson was on the move, arranging private conversations with TxDOT’s Heather Ashley-Nguyen, asking Jay Reese to estimate the construction cost of 1LBL Boardwalk, and making “connections” between TxDOT and Leah Boho, the Hyatt PUD Developer’s Agent to the CoA. (See Ref [1], Summer 2023, TTC negotiates with TxDOT without the Parks Department)

In August 2023, TxDOT published the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Boardwalk is mentioned in Appendix M under “4F mitigation” approved by the Federal Highways Administration.

The following excerpt from the TxDOT FEIS shows that “coordination” for 4F mitigation “for park and trail impacts” was made exclusively with COA PARD.

2023-08 FEIS Appendix M 4F - pages 73-74 Coordination with CoA PARD - not TTC - 2023-08 capex-central-feis-rod-appendix-m.pdf

Acting against their own legal framework (the FEIS), some TxDOT staff members spent countless hours trying to figure out a way to NOT pay the $25M 4F mitigation to COA PARD. (See Ref [2], Fall 2023, TxDOT staff contortions)

In Sept. 2023, TTC, TxDOT and Parks Dir. McNeeley had a meeting in which TxDOT explained their funding scheme: Together, they would find a way for TTC to receive the $25M to build the Hyatt PUD Developer’s 1LBL Boardwalk. 

The meeting of Sept.5 was arranged with “personal salutations” and a request to add Kimberly McNeeley to the attendee list. For TxDOT staff, McNeeley’s attendance was an afterthought.

TTC’s Anderson: ”Also adding Kimberly McNeeley, Director of the Parks Department.” 

2023-10-05: An email summary of the 2023-09-05 TxDOT-TTC-McNeeley meeting shows that McNeeley kept the TxDOT-TTC plan — that the Parks Department would not be involved in the 1LBL Boardwalk construction project — a secret. Her email slyly avoids says exactly which entity would receive the funding.  Excerpt:

Email evidence from a year later in 2024 shows that McNeeley failed to explain the Boardwalk scenario to her top staff. In August 2024, Asst. Director Kallivoka was “unclear” about the Boardwalk proposal: 

“I am unclear about the connection between the Hyatt PUD and the boardwalk that TxDOT was discussing with TTC.”

On 2024-08-15, PARD's Ricardo Soliz (Park Planning Division Manager) stated:  

"TxDOT is providing $25M for the building of the boardwalk to satisfy their 4F requirements. This was news to me. TxDOT is dictating the 4F mitigation without our input."

The funding scheme takes a year to develop:

In spring of 2024, TTC’s Hanna Cofer collaborated with TxDOT staff to create a funding scheme that would exclusively pay the $25M to TTC (with the APFC as intergovernmental agency), bypassing the COA PARD and contradicting the FEIS. 

TxDOT prepared a Draft Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) showing the funding scheme. The $25M would not be paid to COA PARD, and the Boardwalk would be tightly controlled by TTC:

McNeeley kept the TTC $25M funding scheme a secret from PARD long enough to resign from the Parks Department and begin her new employment as the TTC’s CEO in 2024. In July 2024, McNeeley herself put TTC’s 1LBL Boardwalk Presentation on the agenda of the Austin Public Facilities Corporation (APFC).

Note: The TTC’s $25M Boardwalk project received a “revolving door” approval by McNeeley: In 2023, McNeeley helped her friend Heidi Anderson. In 2024, McNeeley took Anderson’s job and became the TTC CEO, allowing McNeeley to control the massive “secret” project.

By August 2024, key staffers in PARD were briefed by McNeeley. They were nearly speechless: 

Tom and I participated in a … meeting that Kimberly requested. I left that meeting in shock. It seems to me that they have funneled $25 million in 4f mitigation funds to a private developer to build a boardwalk and remove the trail from the front of the Hyatt. 

As Parks Asst. Director Kallivoka stated on the record in Jan. 2025: 

PARD staff has not been involved in the decisions related to the TxDOT $25 million mitigation funds… 

2025, a new Parks Director, a new year: How TxDOT explained the 1LBL Boardwalk to incoming Parks Director Jesus Aguirre

On Feb. 14, 2025, the TxDOT Director of Transportation, Planning and Development, Heather Ashley-Nguyen sent an email to the new Austin Parks Director Jesus Aguirre summarizing TxDOT’s plans for construction of the 1LBL Boardwalk.

2025-02-14: TxDOT’s Heather Ashley-Nguyen explained the Boardwalk to the new PARD director:

At one point we were hoping to use the developer’s land or the boardwalk itself as the 6f replacement, but both were denied because the are[area] is already being used as recreation. This was all in close coordination with PARD. Also, TxDOT is working with the Austin Public Facilities Corporation (APFC) as our contracting party with the backup Code Texas Local Government Code , Chapter 303. Therefore, APFC is the Local Government my team is drafting the standard Advanced Funding Agreement with.

The problems with this email:

1. 2024-2025 emails by PARD staff give evidence that it was absolutely not “in close coordination with PARD”.
2. The APFC’s role has since collapsed (the APFC directors lied about its “current nonprofit status” in their application for registration to the TX Secretary of State), and we know now that TxDOT’s $25M funding will likely be paid to PARD after all (TBD).
3. It omits explaining to the new PARD director that the proposed 1LBL Boardwalk location is 6 acres of dedicated parkland valued at $14.8M (TCAD Property ID.s 190731 and 190737).

New Parks Director Jesus Aguirre spoke to the Parks Board in 2025.

On 2025-03-04, Parks Director Aguirre answered questions about the $25M Boardwalk at the Parks Board Meeting. (See Ref. [3], March 2025, Aguirre’s explanation to the Parks Board). From his statement, we understand that Aguirre believed:

1. that the 1LBL Boardwalk location is “water” and not property (incorrect); and
2. that it’s okay for the Boardwalk to be “built outside of City process.”

Both of Aguirre’s ideas could cause major problems for the citizens of Austin. 

Problem #1: We know that the proposed Boardwalk location is 6 acres of dedicated parkland known as “water parcels” — Property IDs 190731 and 190737 — with TCAD value of $14.8M. The parkland is under the authority of the Parks Department. The parcels host two popular boating concessions. As parkland parcels, these 6 acres are subject to strict rules inside the CoA Parks Department that govern capital improvement projects on parkland. (See Ref. [5], The PARD Rules for capital improvement projects on parkland)

Problem #2: All construction projects on public land (not just parkland) must follow the rules for procurements. If TTC is allowed to construct a boardwalk outside of city processes this means: No RFP’s, no competitive bidding. This would conflict with the CoA Charter. § 15. - PURCHASE PROCEDURE.

“All contracts or purchases involving more than $5,000.00 shall be let to the bid deemed most advantageous to the city after there has been an opportunity for competitive bidding;” 

In 2026, Director Aguirre is now in a position to make a key decision: 

• Will Aguirre recognize that the land is not just “water” but parkland parcels and therefore governed by the Rules for capital improvement projects on parkland? Will Aguirre enforce the City’s Charter. § 15. - PURCHASE PROCEDURE? Will the Parks Department perform community engagement? Will the CoA draft an RFP and solicit for a construction company using competitive bidding?
• Or will Aguirre, like his predecessor McNeely, demonstrate by his actions that he supports the TTC above and beyond his obligation to enforce the CoA parkland development procedures?

The City of Austin should not be contorting itself to enrich TTC.

The job posting for the new Parks director in 2024 asked for candidates who would support park nonprofits. Jesus Aguirre got the job. His job duties require his general support for park nonprofits. Dir. Aguirre’s previous employer was the Austin park nonprofit Waterloo Greenway Conservancy. As CEO of WGC, Aguirre earned over $300K in 2023. (See Ref. [4], Aguirre earned over $300K a year as a Nonprofit CEO). 

He recently unilaterally awarded an unprecedented 15-year contract to Austin City Limits Festival (ACL) in partnership with the nonprofit Austin Parks Foundation. 

At present in 2026, Aguirre’s loyalty to the taxpaying public has not yet been proven.

The TTC’s $25M Boardwalk is the next test case for the Parks Department Director.

Will the Parks Department enforce:

• the 2022 TTC POMA (in which TTC has only a secondary role, PARD has primary authority)? 
• the Rules for capital improvement projects on parkland?
• the City Charter requirements for competitive bidding?

In 2026, citizens must watch the Parks Department and dissuade them from “lack of transparency and deceptive planning processes” in the proposed $25M Boardwalk plan.

Does the Parks Department serve the public? Or the Hyatt PUD Developer?

My specific request:

If TTC wants to build a boardwalk, it must be a project selected by the Parks Department, under the terms of the existing TTC 2022 POMA, and by normal processes: CoA RFP’s and competitive bidding.

To build a boardwalk, TTC must win the competitive bid.