Rowlett City Council on Oct. 1 selected a roundabout for the main access to the Hereford Park municipal complex and identified Option 1C as the council’s baseline park layout, asking staff and the design team to refine costs, quantities and a prioritized list of amenities for later approval.

City Manager David Hall told the council the project is at a “critical point” and that the choices the council makes now will affect both budget and design. “We’re at a stage where the choices you make will inform both budget and design impacts,” Hall said as architects and the construction manager presented layout variations and quantities.

Why it matters: The decision narrows the city’s design track for the multiuse campus that will include city hall, animal-shelter/kennel support space, public-safety facilities and a downtown-facing park. The site layout affects vehicle circulation, pedestrian connections and costs for infrastructure, drainage and site amenities; staff said they will return with updated cost spreadsheets showing how selected elements affect contingency and the project budget.

The roundabout versus four‑way stop question drew sustained discussion. Dan Paul of Swinerton, the construction manager on the project, said the cost difference between the two access types is modest. “No, it’s not significant. It’s about a $117,000 difference,” Paul said. Supporters of the roundabout said it improves traffic flow and reduces the risk of drivers running stop signs at a busy intersection adjacent to the park and public‑safety campus; the parks board had earlier advised against a roundabout, saying it would make the area feel more like a thoroughfare than a park.

Councilmember Reese (first reference used as recorded in the meeting) said he favored the roundabout for long‑term appearance and control, and other council members expressed similar views. After discussion a motion to select Option 1 (the roundabout scheme) as the council’s preferred access configuration was made and the council voted in favor; the motion passed without a recorded roll‑call tally in the meeting transcript.

On park layout, the council gravitated to Option 1C as the starting point for further refinement. Architects showed 1C “brought to life” with the pieces the council discussed: three tennis courts (with useable striping for other paddle sports), six pickleball courts, two basketball courts, an informal soccer/open turf area, multiple small “play nodes” and larger pavilion/shade structures; the animal‑shelter kennel area will include artificial turf and shade as a consistent, high‑priority item.

Council discussion documented a number of specific preferences and concerns: several council members said shade, potable water refill stations and seating are high priorities; the animal shelter/turf items were treated as top priority; councilmembers questioned the necessity of a splash‑pad water play feature because of operating and maintenance costs and user fit. Staff said the front pond/reflecting basin on Main Street is intended to be a wet feature with aeration and an external water source to maintain levels; the larger back pond is a retention/detention feature that staff expects to hold water most of the year but may fluctuate.

Architects and Swinerton responded in real time to council direction by placing pavilion, shade and node elements on a full‑scale mockup and then producing an on‑screen cost summary. The council requested that staff return with a refined cost and contingency update reflecting the items shown and a prioritized order of alternates (additions or deletions) so the city can stage work as funding or contingencies change. David Hall said staff will “huddle up” with the design team and present a firmer set of options at a future meeting.

The council did not adopt a final, contract‑level plan at the meeting; instead it chose access (roundabout) and a baseline park configuration (1C) to guide the next rounds of design and budgeting. Architects emphasized the exercise was intended as a listening and prioritization session rather than final sign‑off on every amenity.

Next steps: staff and the project team will finalize quantities and pricing based on the council’s feedback, then return with a costed recommendation and schedule for council action. A specific date for the follow‑up presentation was not set during the Oct. 1 meeting.

Ending: The council recessed twice during the presentation to allow the design team to sketch and price the council’s placements, then reconvened and closed the meeting at 7:40 p.m.