Haslet park board presses for clarity on Park Fund 15 spending, project decisions

Haslet Park Board members on Aug. 13 pressed city staff for clearer accounting and a return of formal review authority after they discovered additional engineering expenditures and new park installations they said were completed or approved without the board''s prior involvement. The board said a $72,004.03 line item appeared in recent accounting for Community Park engineering and that year-to-date engineering allocations now total roughly $174,500; staff and board members said the board had not been given full details about what the funds paid for. The board also discussed recently installed or proposed items at Community Park and Firehouse Field, including drainage work, box culverts, replacement LED field lights, dugout benches and quotes for modular restrooms and a storage area. Why it matters: the park board is the advisory body the city uses to review park needs and recommend capital work; members said Park Fund 15 (the park development fee) has been the usual source for capital improvements and that they were not briefed before some projects moved forward. Board members said that limited access to council meeting video and the removal of certain parks from the board''s action agenda have made oversight harder. Board discussion and requests: at the meeting a board member drew attention to the accounting entries and said, "We don't approve fund 15. We're not approving it," characterizing the board''s lack of decision-making authority on those expenditures. City staff described specific project work in progress: rip-rap for an east crossing, box culverts expected to arrive Aug. 28, footings remaining for a pavilion, new dugout benches, replacement backstop pads, and a new pole-and-net system ordered for a field. Staff also said lead times for canopies and pavilion deliveries were longer than expected. The board requested that staff locate the July 14 council meeting video or minutes that board members said referenced returning parks to the board''s agenda; members said they will follow up with city council for a clear statement of whether the board should have action authority on Community Park, Nance Field and Firehouse Field going forward. A board member asked staff for specific line-item backing for the $72,004.03 charge and for an explanation of how the cumulative engineering total had reached the roughly $174,500 figure reported at the meeting. Officials and responsibilities: board members repeatedly asked for clarification on the contract between the city and HSA (the local sports association that has had exclusive-use provisions in past contracts) and whether HSA or the city holds operational responsibility for field maintenance and scheduling. A board member pointed to the HSA contract (originally executed 2017) as a document the board has requested to review; city staff present said they would follow up. Actions and next steps: the board took no formal action to change the projects but voted earlier in the meeting to approve the consent agenda (minutes and July budget) by motion of Cindy (motion) and second by Chuck; that consent motion carried unanimously. For the park projects the board recorded requests for the following: public posting or access to the July 14 council discussion, a written accounting of Fund 15 line items tied to the Community Park work, and confirmation of which parks the board may act on versus only receive updates about. Board members said they will ask the mayor and council for formal clarification and will return the issue to a future meeting once the council record is available. Limitations and context: speakers noted the city has committed capital money for parks and that some work (sewers, drainage) required coordination with other utilities. Board members also said the city''s current master-plan discussions and budget cycles affect when new projects can be funded; one board member noted the department had submitted a budget request and that changes to the budget might not be possible until the next cycle without a special council request. Ending note: board members said they will continue seeking the council record and added that if the city intends to proceed without board recommendations the board needs an explicit statement of that policy so members understand their role going forward.