Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett council denies proposal to relocate roller-hockey rink to Community Park
Summary
After public pleas to keep the rink at Hereford Park and questions about site planning and sunk design costs, the Rowlett City Council voted unanimously May 19 to deny a $343,790.47 contract to move the roller-hockey rink to Community Park.
The Rowlett City Council voted unanimously May 19 to deny a contract that would have relocated the city's roller-hockey rink to Community Park, saying ongoing municipal-complex planning and site concerns make advancing the project premature.
Mayor Jeff Winget read the agenda item, which recommended an award to RLM Earthco Inc. for a not-to-exceed $343,790.47 contract ($312,536.79 plus a 10% contingency of $31,253.68). Councilmember Gibbs moved to deny the item; the motion was seconded by Patrick Bridal and carried unanimously.
"This is a vote to deny, which means that if you push yes, you are approving that motion, the motion to deny the item," Winget said before the hand vote, explaining the procedural flip of language so newer members would be clear.
Council discussed the practical trade-offs of denying the contract, including roughly $60,000 staff said had been spent on design, soil analysis and surveys that might not carry forward to a different site. Staff and one council member noted that soil conditions had driven initial site decisions and that design work for Community Park had been tailored to a slab-built rink that would accommodate poorer soils.
Multiple public commenters urged the council to keep the rink at Hereford Park. "Hereford Park has been our home for 26 years," said Robert Stockard, who described the hockey league's volunteer-managed operations and argued the rink is an anchor for downtown activity. Dan Hapt warned that Waterview residents oppose stadium lights and urged the council to keep the facility at its present location.
The mayor and council also cited broader municipal planning questions, including how a future municipal complex and pending bond-funded park redesigns might change the long-term preferred location for recreational infrastructure. Given those open questions, council members concluded denying the item and revisiting it later was the prudent approach.
Outcome: motion to deny passed unanimously; the contract award to RLM Earthco Inc. was not approved. The matter may return to council for reconsideration after further study and any changes to related municipal planning.
