I wanted to post some additional information and background with regard to the City of Austin Tennis Community Engagement Meeting that is scheduled for October 22nd at 1pm. As stated in the October 12, 2011 post, the purpose of the meeting is to "provide stakeholders, community members, and interested citizens the opportunity to provide their input regarding growing the game of tennis while serving the needs of the tennis community" regarding Pharr Tennis Center. I spoke to Lonnie Lyman with the City today and he emphasized that this meeting is to discuss management of Pharr Tennis Center, not South Austin, Caswell or other city tennis centers.
I think it is safe to say that the City decided to hold this meeting as direct result of the October 6, 2011 City Council meeting. During that meeting the City Council considered whether to award the contract to manage Pharr Tennis Center to Rippner Tennis. During that meeting four individuals spoke against this action. The City Council members discussed the issue of whether four out of the eight courts should be put aside for lessons, and at least one person argued against having this provision in the contract. The City Council postponed the item and voted to send it to the parks board for further consideration of issues discussed such as "usage, financial benefits of lessons vs. open courts, etc." You can watch the discussion here, click on item #47.
Today I saw an email from a local teaching pro which stated that there is a "possibility that that lessons, clinics, and junior programs provided at Austin public tennis centers could likely be eliminated or greatly reduced." The email also stated that the City Council "determined that the current model of management at public tennis centers should not be allowed to continue..."
After watching the October 6 City Council meeting twice, I would have to disagree with those statements. While I suppose there is always a "possibility" that lessons could be eliminated or reduced, I don't think it is "likely" and at no time did the City Council make any statements to that effect. In addition there was no conclusion reached by the Council that the current model of management should not be allowed to continue.
I do understand the value of lessons and clinics to the Austin tennis community, and I also understand that people want to be able to reserve courts so they can actually play tennis. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think it is important to provide input on the management of Pharr Tennis Center to the City of Austin. Please attend the October 22 meeting which is being held at Hancock Recreation Center from 1-3pm. The address in 811 E. 41st Street.
-Anthony Tatu
I think it is safe to say that the City decided to hold this meeting as direct result of the October 6, 2011 City Council meeting. During that meeting the City Council considered whether to award the contract to manage Pharr Tennis Center to Rippner Tennis. During that meeting four individuals spoke against this action. The City Council members discussed the issue of whether four out of the eight courts should be put aside for lessons, and at least one person argued against having this provision in the contract. The City Council postponed the item and voted to send it to the parks board for further consideration of issues discussed such as "usage, financial benefits of lessons vs. open courts, etc." You can watch the discussion here, click on item #47.
Today I saw an email from a local teaching pro which stated that there is a "possibility that that lessons, clinics, and junior programs provided at Austin public tennis centers could likely be eliminated or greatly reduced." The email also stated that the City Council "determined that the current model of management at public tennis centers should not be allowed to continue..."
After watching the October 6 City Council meeting twice, I would have to disagree with those statements. While I suppose there is always a "possibility" that lessons could be eliminated or reduced, I don't think it is "likely" and at no time did the City Council make any statements to that effect. In addition there was no conclusion reached by the Council that the current model of management should not be allowed to continue.
I do understand the value of lessons and clinics to the Austin tennis community, and I also understand that people want to be able to reserve courts so they can actually play tennis. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think it is important to provide input on the management of Pharr Tennis Center to the City of Austin. Please attend the October 22 meeting which is being held at Hancock Recreation Center from 1-3pm. The address in 811 E. 41st Street.
-Anthony Tatu
19 comments:
Please note that this meeting is only about the Pharr Tennis Center contract. The other public centers are already under contract. So, your comments will be most effective if you focus on Pharr.
In addition, the issue is HOW the center is managed, not WHO manages it. At the city council meeting, Parks and Recreation (PARD) was recommending more programming at Pharr. PARD admitted that "programming" meant private lessons and clinics.
So, if you think Pharr needs or does not need more private lessons and clinics, please let your opinions be known.
In fact this meeting is not limited to Pharr Tennis Center rather it will apply to the management structure and the ability to provide lessons and clinics at Caswell Tennis Center as well. If City Council changes the municipal tennis center format at Pharr Tennis and Caswell Tennis Center, it will be because the City of Austin believes they are changing things for the better and serving the Austin Tennis Community. When contracts at ATC and South Austin Tennis Center come up for renewal, it will also apply to those tennis centers. The City will not have one model for some tennis centers and a different model for others: it will be one contract for all tennis centers. Additionally, Caswell Tennis Center, South Austin Tennis Center, and Austin Tennis Center host leagues, tournaments, open-play, as well as lessons and clinics. This blend of services optimizes the product provided to the Austin Tennis community and gives opportunity to all groups. Eliminating programming is not a compromise and forcing kids and new tennis players to join country clubs to learn this great sport will greatly reduce the next generation of tennis players in Austin and make tennis less accessible to the general public.
I'm still confused where the idea of eliminating programming is coming from. Could you please refer me to the minutes in the City Council meeting where this is discussed ? As I mentioned I watched the meeting twice and saw no discussion of this idea.
It's all about money. The people running the tennis centers make a lot, but they want to make more. I don't blame them, but the average Joe should be able to reserve a court to play during prime time.
The confusion comes from the fact that the city has given the Pharr contract to Rippner tennis who also manages SATC.
Some in the tennis community feel that too many courts at SATC are used for lessons and not enough are available for open play and leagues. The concern is that the same will now happen at Pharr.
Those that are used to being able to get courts at Pharr for open play and use it for league home courts are afraid that the courts will not be offered up for those uses because they are being reserved for bigger money making lessons and drills.
The fear is legitimate. Very few leagues play out of SATC and it is very difficult to get a court to play there. Pharr has long been home to NUMEROUS leagues and it is usually pretty easy to get a court there.
Having said that, I also take drills out of SATC. They have some of the best instructors in town while Pharr offers few if any drill sessions.
I'd like to see a compromise. More drills at Pharr would be a good thing, but the Rippners need to know that many that take their drills also play in leagues and need open play time. Perhaps our input at the meeting will encourage them and the city to leave a larger percentage of courts available for those uses.
-"I'm still confused where the idea of eliminating programming is coming from. Could you please refer me to the minutes in the City Council meeting where this is discussed ? As I mentioned I watched the meeting twice and saw no discussion of this idea."
wait? did you not reference this in the original post?
-"The City Council members discussed the issue of whether four out of the eight courts should be put aside for lessons..."
the elimination of courts for programming = the elimination of programing ...
Likewise, the reservation of courts solely for progamming = the elimination of courts available for leagues and open play.
Yes, the City Council did discuss how many courts should be set aside for lessons. At no time was there ever a discussion of eliminating programming completely. Please, let's stick to the facts, scare tactics and exaggerations are not helpful.
where does the near empty Austin Tennis Center fit in all this?
Not sure I trust the city council to come up with a solution that is in the best interest of the Ausin tennis community. After all they did build a new facility in BFE that is a total waste of tax payers money.
If Council decides to decrease or get rid of the courts used for lessons or to leave Pharr for open play, to make changes at one center they'll have to understand and accept responsibility for creating change at all. And not thinking that that will have an impact on other centers is a mistake. Unfortunately, one-size-fits-all tends to rule.
Thanks for posting Anthony.
I watched the City Council Meeting and have read all of the info.
I am sympathetic to the passion of the older gentlemen that want to keep playing. But from what i hear, they could keep on playing..right? On the flip-side, through enhanced programming, an entire community of youth/adult/seniors could be introduced to tennis, or more importantly, have a fun, safe, family-oriented community location that they can depend on for activity week in and week out. I would bet that, if presented to community residents, they would be in favor of more programming, whether this be lessons, clinics, camps, Friday night family festivities, leagues or other. Please remember that those taking lessons or clinics are also tax paying citizens that I believe benefit greatly from access to quality tennis programs while not having to pay the premiums of private clubs. And I have to admit, the statistic of lessons administered over a year period for Caswell (6,000+) versus Pharr (400+) was interesting to hear. Caswell also has quite a few long-standing senior groups, a thriving lesson/clinic offering and a lot of league and tournament matches played.
I understand the money argument of 4 doubles players returning more profit in an hour than one $60 lesson. Again, based on what I heard in the meeting, it sounds to me like they could keep on playing. If anything, they may have to shift slightly, but with time slots already in non-peak times, they might not have to.
I just don't see this as either PLAY or PROGRAMMING. Seems to me like one feeds the other and together they create a thriving tennis community that impacts the masses. In fact – I would think that current Pharr players would LOVE IT if there were more activities going on around them.
Although I don’t know Maggie and Ruben as well as others, i consider them acquaintances and agree, they are awesome. I can also see why the city put together the RFP they did and agree it could be the best thing for the greater community. If Maggie and Ruben are able to stay, I would hope take some of these requests to heart, and take this opportunity to excel Pharr to an entirely new level.
Just for reference, for 13 years, I’ve been an avid ATL, USTA and Open Play tennis player. I frequent South Austin Tennis Center and typically do not have a problem getting a court. If I do, then I simply adjust my time or call another public facility. Additionally, i often play my league matches there and also take a consistent Wed. night clinic. The combination of all is a wonderful tennis experience and i give high credit to Rippner Tennis for really turning that facility around over the last few years. It is an amazing public tennis facility that we should all be proud of.
Having said all of the above, I’m sure I do not understand every angle, but want to contribute. Let’s turn this into a positive Austin Tennis Community. Keep the discussion going.
A couple of years ago I played on a USTA team that played out of South Austin. We had matches scheduled from 3pm-5pm on the weekends, South Austin closed at 6pm. Management decided to charge us for three hours, from 3pm to 6pm, even though we would not be using the courts that long. When we objected they said "too bad" - we tried to switch to another facility but CATA said too late. Like someone said earlier, it's all about the money.
The Pharr contract allows the contractor to use half of the courts FOR PROFIT. I'd rather see the contract terms changed rather than rely on the good intentions of the contractor, who could later decide, "Gee, I've looked at the situation and determined more lessons is best!"
I've heard the claim that if programming at tennis centers were not available, people would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to join clubs. NOT TRUE! There are plenty of clubs that allow non-members to take lessons and clinics. There are dozens of instructors offering instruction at apartment courts, subdivisions and high school and other public access courts. Check out the list of folks offering lessons on Craigslist. Austin Community College and UT informal classes offer tennis instruction. The Quarrys is doing great, and you don't need to be a member to participate. More importantly, everyday, there are experienced players helping beginners...for free! I've done it dozens of times.
So the PARD representatives bashed Pharr's current model by saying that Caswell offered almost 6,000 hours of lessons last year. If you assume instruction yields about $60/hour, that's more than $360,000 of income....on just on four courts! Tell me what small business wouldn't like more than a quarter of a million dollars of gross income! On public property! Tell me why a contractor wouldn't want to use the courts for lessons instead of practice, leagues or tournaments where they get zip.
I think PARD painted itself into a corner and is now trying to save face by saying its new philosophy is to "grow the game." At the council meeting, the PARD representative admitted that "growing the game" meant "programming" and programming meant "private lessons." And the representative had no answer to the question posed by several council member, "If more people learn to play tennis, where are they going to play?"
So who would subsidize the management of the center and the free clinics? Are we asking PARD to leave the centers open and unlocked or do we want PARD/tax payers to pay?
Personally, $360,000 to cover overhead and divide between 8-12 employees sounds reasonable? And it provides jobs for austinites....right?
Any business that looks to excel, provide quality products and services, keep their shop clean or maintain quality staff needs MONEY. Money is not a bad thing - Greed is. If an agressive tennis pro/group can earn "a lot of money" (as someone said), then that is a direct sign of running a flourishing tennis center which draws and provides for the masses of tax paying citizens. Good for them.
RE: the risk of a contractor changing their mind? That is what the contract is for (which isn't changing by the way) and why you have a stringent RFP/Interview process. Sure, you could still say there is a risk.
"If more people learn to play tennis, where are they going to play?" At Pharr tennis center. There are and will be plenty of open courts, lessons, clinics, family activities, a wall and tournaments to partake in.
Where does Pennick Allison stand as far as now being a public facility? Is that actually the case? I recall the community being excited to be "adding" all of those courts for league play, tournaments, open play, etc.
I was the contract pro at Caswell and then later, South Austin TC. Examining the problems of Austin Tennis is lack of courts, i.e. of one or two large tennis centers (a minimum of 16 courts each). All major cities in Texas have at least 2 large centers. Then and only then can the City hire quality professionals who can teach, organize low cost socials/mixers/leagues and still have open courts for regular reservations and not have to pay the pro a large salary. He/she can make a decent income from offering a variety of programs, not just lessons.
Oftentimes the City thinks that to treat all pro and centers exactly alike is "fair". Actually, the smarter and more effective way to treat the four centers is to treat them differently. Example, Caswell could be a "non-reservation" center with no organized programs. Players would have to "show" and walk-up for a reservation. Caswell would still be full most of the time. Austin High could be used as a lesson center with as many as 8 courts for lessons and fill in with leagues. The new ATC center, when it has 10 additional courts used, would be the "program" center for mass leagues, tournaments, parties, etc. Then players would love to go more miles to play longer in these organized programs.
Pharr should "enclose" the two free courts and use for lessons. Then, 8 courts would be free for leagues and mixers.
It is not financially feasible and not fair to the pro contractor to have two "free" courts right next to a center that charges a court fee.
Therefore, as the courts are now, it is smart and fair to treat the centers differently.
PS Lesson takers are "public" too!
Sheryl Behne, USPTA Master Professional
I was director of tennis at a private club for two years prior to serving as manager of South Austin Tennis Center for three years. I recently went back to graduate school, now work in education and teach a bit on the side.
The fact I wish to point out is that tennis pros do not make a lot of money. We are limited to a few prime-time hours (it is very difficult to develop a clientelle during non-prime time). Our income disappears during bad weather and during holidays (from Thanksgiving to New Year). We have no health or other benefit programs and as contractors pay our own payroll taxes. We are not city employees.
Most pros do it because it's their calling, and do not make anything resembling a lavish amount of money.
Also, it's worth noting that all court fee revenue is paid to the City of Austin, not to the pro mangager/contractor. I am very surprised to hear that a player was charged for 3 hours for a 3-5 reservation (when the facility closed at 6). Finishing out a match with no additional court fee when the court is open is standard policy and I agree with the player who felt offended by that occurrence.
I agree with Anthony that a rational assessment of the situation is needed.
Finally, it was interesting to observe that when all of our pros were at the meeting on Tuesday night, and no courts (save for mine) were used for teaching, the tennis center was very empty. Very often we have 5 courts with clinics in the evenings-- 6-8 players per court. People sometimes have to park on the street. We can get more than 30 people playing tennis after work at any given time on just 5 courts. It's a service that a lot of people love and benefit from. Many would suffer if it were not available. Also, the game of tennis in general depends a lot on the transfer of tennis knowledge and development of new players (of all ages).
I've known and signed the paychecks for a lot of tennis pros. I honestly believe that if they were motivated by greed they probably wouldn't be in the tennis teaching business.
Noah Rippner
Post a Comment