Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses Hurt Road parkland purchase, public engagement and options for fields vs passive park
Summary
Board members discussed the Hurt Road parkland the city acquired and whether to build athletic fields or use the site for other park amenities.
Board members discussed the Hurt Road parkland the city acquired and whether to build athletic fields or use the site for other park amenities.
Alderman Fuqua and others said the city faces a known demand for fields: local leagues and recreation organizations have reported turning away participants for lack of space. Alderman Davis asked whether staff had done a community survey; staff said the original consultant scope did not include extensive public engagement and that the city intends to add engagement tasks (QR codes in parks, school visits, online surveys) if the board requests a more robust process.
Staff said the site (roughly 40–50 acres) was bought on favorable terms and sits near neighborhoods and an elementary school on the Williamson County side of the city, offering geographic balance to parks located primarily south of the city. Alderman Hartwell and others raised concerns about topography, neighboring homeowners’ noise and light concerns and estimated earth‑work costs for leveling fields.
Board members asked staff to compile factual measures of need — for example, the county’s numbers on registrations and the number of participants turned away — rather than rely only on a short public survey. Staff said a comprehensive community engagement program is likely to take six to eight months to reach multiple constituencies. Staff also said the city will reconcile prior parkland fund commitments and resolutions so the board can see what funds remain available for park development.
Why this matters: the Hurt Road land purchase represents a large and visible opportunity to add park space in an under‑served part of the city, but it also raises trade-offs — fields require significant grading and generate noise and light, while passive parkland demands less construction but may not meet recreation demand. The board asked staff to return with a scope and cost for more detailed community engagement and revised design estimates.
