During the Nov. 18 Southlake City Council meeting, Southlake Director of Community Services David Miller made another presentation to council about the renovation and expansion project that was first discussed in the spring of 2023, according to previous reporting.
The council approved a design contract in June, and Miller reviewed two decisions required at the 30% design mark.
The context
Miller presented cases for natural grass or artificial turf between the park that spans from in front of town hall to FM 1709/Southlake Boulevard.
The natural grass would be a mix of Bermuda and Zoysia Palisades with a 15-year total cost of $1.63 million. The cost for artificial turf for the same 15-year span is $1.05 million, according to the presentation.
Miller said, though, depending on usage, the turf might need to be replaced sooner.
Council member Chuck Taggart said while the turf on the city’s ball fields looks nice, there are a lot of things that can’t be on them, such as metal spikes, gum, sunflower seeds and heels.
“I just feel that we would be wearing [turf] out a lot faster than 15 years,” he said. “The stuff that I see online on this particular product is up to 15 years, but heavy use is saying 10 to 12 years, which then brings that cost to replace this in 10 years, even at 15 years.”
The cost
The initial project cost for turf is $577,920, while grass cost is $97,000 to start. The trade-off was an estimated maintenance cost of $1.53 million for grass over 15 years, while turf maintenance cost was $480,338.
“It’s supposed to look natural and more postcard-ish,” council member Austin Reynolds said. “I recognize it’s more expensive, but I think Southlake requires more things and more services. I think about it from a hotel option, whether we are full-service or limited-service. I mean, Southlake’s the Ritz [Carlton], right? We got to pay for those things. Obviously, it costs more money, but I’m in favor of the grass.”
The collective decision of the council was to go with natural grass on the project.
A closer look
Miller also addressed whether the city should forge ahead to construct bathroom/amenity centers within the park.
The plan would have a total associated cost of $1.52 million, according to Miller’s presentation, but city documents stated this was not a new cost, but part of the initial estimate for the park. That price tag was between $13 million and $34 million based on the timeline, according to previous reporting.
Instead of restrooms, the third option was for the space to house the audio/visual and IT infrastructure at the gazebo and park. That associated cost is $210,000, according to the presentation.
After the discussion, the council did not want to add restrooms to the park. However, there was interest in adding water filling stations.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Talley said she did not like the restroom idea because it would take away from seeing the park if guests were shopping at Bath and Body Works, since it would create an obstructed view.
“I’m not a fan of that at all,” she said. “We’ve already talked about how this park is the gem of our town; just the openness of it is wonderful.”
