City manager halts Tucker Recreation Center pickleball contract after bid questions; neighbors urge wider process

City Manager John McHenry told the Tucker Mayor and City Council on May 12 that the city will reject all proposals and will not award a contract in response to Invitation to Bid 2024-017, Tucker Recreation Center Pickleball Courts Construction, “at this time.” He said the original bids are now more than six months old and “questions remain concerning the proposed contractor's license.” McHenry said the project would be rebid if the city decides to move forward.

The announcement came just before the meeting’s public-comment period and framed a sustained round of remarks from residents who live near the rec center and others who support courts. The matter drew more than a dozen speakers during public comment, with widely diverging views on the site, design and process.

Neighbors said the proposed court layout and lighting would harm sleep and quality of life for nearby households. “The lights on the back of the rec center already impact us — they light up the house at night and it's hard to sleep,” said Debbie Wallace, who identified herself as a long-time resident on Shamley Tucker Road. Beverly Williams, who said she lives “directly across the street,” urged the council to review contractor certifications citywide and to be vigilant in the upcoming election.

Some supporters of the project argued it would deliver on the parks master plan and serve a growing local demand. Sam Ulrich, who said he lives about a half-mile from the TRC, described the project as delivering “on 6 of the top 20 items” in the parks plan and said the current design includes sound blockers, a vegetation berm and court placement intended to reduce noise. Ulrich said the plan should reduce sound at the nearest residential property line to “less than 40 decibels,” a level he compared to a quiet library.

Several residents urged the council to slow the process and build a documented, transparent process for siting city facilities in residential areas. “Now is the perfect time to take a step back,” said Heather Hale, who said she supports pickleball access generally but opposes the prior and current designs and called for a “seat at the table” for residents most affected.

Speakers raised three recurring concerns: lighting (residents described 40-foot LED poles in the plan), nighttime noise and the city’s procurement and review process that allowed a bid to reach award without what some described as adequate scrutiny. McHenry’s statement that questions remained about a bidder’s license prompted residents to ask the council to review past contracts as well.

Councilmembers and staff did not take a formal vote on the pickleball courts at the May 12 meeting; the only formal action announced was the city manager’s administrative decision to reject the current proposals. McHenry said the project could be rebid if the city moves forward, and councilmembers and staff repeatedly told speakers the project design and budget will continue to be discussed in coming meetings and work sessions.

What happens next: the project is not under contract. City staff and councilmembers said they expect further outreach, additional review of procurement documentation and the possibility of redesign or relocation of courts should the city decide to reissue the solicitation. Residents requested a documented community-engagement process and clearer public information about lighting, sound studies and contractor vetting before any future award.