Council pauses vote, asks staff to re‑examine fire‑station sites including Canfield and Field of Dreams

The Dearborn Heights City Council on April 8 paused action on a proposed north‑end fire station site and directed staff to re‑examine alternative locations, including the Canfield Recreation Center property and a school/district parcel sometimes called "Field of Dreams."

City Engineer John Deeb told the council he and outside consultants evaluated sites recommended by the fire department to meet response‑time goals. Deeb said Beach Daly (north of the maintenance driveway) was technically feasible and would allow future expansion; the county had declined to transfer an adjacent county parcel that staff and the fire department initially preferred. “If we go with site 2A, we can expand the 27 [hole golf course],” Deeb said, adding that engineering work would be required to prepare the site and utilities.

Several residents and council members objected to sites that sit near low‑lying areas or that would reduce parking for newly planned golf‑course venues. Vince Drapkowski and others urged the city to avoid building on the golf course, arguing it would harm the course’s future expansion potential. “If you start building on that golf course, I'm afraid you're going to take away from its value and its potential,” Drapkowski said.

Council members also raised construction‑cost and grant deadlines. Deeb said the city has a reimbursement grant (about $500,000) for design work and that preliminary geotechnical work and borings would take several weeks once a site is chosen. Several members said losing that available design funding would be problematic.

Outcome: After extended debate the council voted to refer the site selection back to administration and requested staff examine Canfield and the Field‑of‑Dreams parcel, return engineering feasibility and drainage analyses, and confirm grant timing. Council members emphasized they did not want to lose the design grant but wanted more options considered and clearer flood‑risk analyses before committing to a site.

Ending: The council asked staff for a short follow‑up that compares response‑time impacts, site preparation costs, and flood‑mitigation requirements for the shortlisted sites and the Canfield/Field options.