Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Playground Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Park Board delays playground decision after committee recommends Child's Play; special meeting set
Summary
After a months‑long committee review, board members heard detailed bids for a new Community Park playground and the HCEDC committee recommended Child's Play. Members deferred a final decision and scheduled a special meeting Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. to review revised quotes and scope changes.
The Haslet Park Board on May 13 reviewed three competing proposals for a new Community Park playground and tabled a final vote after the committee recommended a vendor whose design emphasized inclusive features and an extended warranty program.
Kitty Wartz, president of the HCEDC board, told the Park Board the committee chose the vendor identified in packet C, saying, "Child's Play provided the most complete play experience possible for our kiddos, ensuring play features for all abilities" and that the company offered a supplementary service arrangement the committee valued. Wartz said the board-level EDC currently has a $500,000 allocation for two playgrounds but that she planned to ask the EDC to consider raising that limit (she said she would request up to $800,000 at the EDC's next meeting) to cover the preferred design and contingencies.
Park staff and committee members walked the board through the three bids (presented as options A, B and C). All three include multi‑tower play structures, swings that include ADA‑accessible seats, engineered surfacing (presenter said a 1.5‑inch pile turf with cooling infill was proposed), and zipline elements. The bids differed on proprietary play pieces, zipline type and length, the number and type of spinning elements, and whether turf installation was subcontracted. The presenter warned that some proposals would require site adjustments that could affect trees and disc‑golf pad #5.
Committee members and focus groups of parents — including families of children with limited mobility — emphasized ramped access and ground‑level activities. One committee member summarized outreach findings by saying playground C scored highly for inclusive ramp access and multiple ground‑level features that make independent play easier for children who use mobility devices.
Board members pressed staff and the committee about budget and site risks. Staff noted one vendor's contract language allowing additional charges of up to $2,000 per day if unforeseen rock or restricted access forced slower installation; another vendor's bid included a locked‑in price clause unless the city requested changes. Committee members flagged a possible scenario in which vendor C's layout might require moving two trees near a disc‑golf tee and warned that tree replacement or relocation could add cost.
The board did not vote to award a contract. Instead a board member moved to table the decision pending revised, firm quotes that incorporate three requested clarifications — adding a hammock‑style flex swing if possible, confirming the full cost (and any separate cost) of the supplier's supplemental warranty arrangement, and providing explicit, itemized pricing for any tree relocation or rock‑excavation contingencies. The board set a special meeting for Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. to review the revised proposals.
What happens next: staff will ask each vendor for the requested clarifications and updated quotes, including any separate turf subcontractor pricing, and circulate those materials before the special meeting. The EDC board meets next Wednesday; committee members said they would ask the EDC to consider increasing the available funding if the board chooses the higher‑cost design.
