Public objections, drainage and cost questions follow Nueces County presentation for Hazel Bayesmore dog park design

A public commenter told the Nueces County Commissioners Court July 29 that he opposed a planned Hazel Bayesmore dog park and was alarmed the project grew from an original ~5,000‑square‑foot plan to a 40,000‑square‑foot design with an estimated budget of about $418,000.

“There's something fishy there,” the commenter, Roger Powell, said in the courtroom public‑comment period. Powell said the county should prioritize road and drainage repairs and asked why the county would spend roughly $418,000 on a dog park when, he said, a simple fenced area could be much cheaper.

County staff and the project consultant, Govind, then presented the revised dog park design later in the agenda. The plan would locate a fenced, multi‑use dog park at Hazel Bayesmore with roughly 40,000 square feet of total fenced area, a separate roughly 10,000–14,000‑square‑foot ADA‑compliant enclosure, two shaded structures, hydration stations, benches, leash poles, dog agility features (hoops and jumps), a small in‑ground pond placed in the site’s lowest spot to collect runoff, and two sand play areas. The consultant said some existing park items — including two pet water fountains and two shade structures — would be relocated to the new site and that several amenities already exist in park inventory, reducing costs.

The consultant described the projected budget as within the county’s $400,000 appropriation. He said the county’s Inland Parks staff would supply certain materials from inventory and that the general contractor would install owner‑provided items, which, he said, would simplify contracting and reduce the contractor’s purchased‑materials markup.

Commissioners and staff discussed drainage and a concrete curb/berm on the site that some have proposed using for a splash pad or other amenities. County engineers and parks staff said the curb’s structural adequacy is unknown and recommended a structural evaluation to determine whether it can be reused or should be demolished. The court directed staff to have the county’s designated contractor and county engineer evaluate the berm and return with a cost estimate so the court could decide at a future meeting. The court asked for that analysis to be returned by the Aug. 10 meeting timeline or otherwise the Aug. 5–10 meeting window discussed during the session.

Staff also confirmed the plan includes steps intended to reduce pet‑waste impacts: the fenced footprint includes low spots and a designed pond for collection, a planned liner and cleaning program and signs; staff said they would coordinate water‑quality testing and maintenance with public‑health and parks staff and use practices observed at other large dog parks.

The court did not vote on the design itself on July 29; instead it directed the county attorney and public‑works staff to assemble further materials and asked the parks department to arrange the technical berm analysis. The county also instructed staff to provide a packet for the court’s consideration and to return with a recommendation. Parks staff said the county intended to bid the work in September if the court approved the designs and cost estimates.

Ending: County staff must return with a structural assessment of the existing concrete feature and a final cost breakdown before the court will decide whether to proceed. The court’s direction preserves the design work while asking for targeted technical and cost follow‑up after public comment raised concerns about scale and cost.