Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Pickleball topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingston council approves $830,000 for Lauren Park pickleball/tennis project after debate on noise mitigation
Summary
The Common Council amended a budget transfer to increase funding for Lauren Park tennis and pickleball improvements to $830,000, adding $145,000 for a study of sound mitigation; the council also issued a SEQR Type II determination for the project.
Get email alerts on the Parks Pickleball topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Kingston Common Council voted 8–1 on March 4 to amend a budget transfer and authorize $830,000 for the Lauren Park Tennis and Pickleball Facility Improvements Project, including up to $145,000 earmarked for a study of sound mitigation techniques.
The vote amended Resolution 33 of 02/2025, which initially proposed a $685,000 transfer from fund balance for Parks and Recreation. Alderman Michael Tierney moved the amendment; Alderman Bob Denison seconded. Alderman Drew Andrews cast the lone dissent. Later in the meeting the council adopted Resolution 41 of 02/2025, issuing a Type II action determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR § 617.5) for the same project by a 9–0 vote.
Why it matters: The additional funds are intended to study and implement ways to reduce noise from pickleball play, which residents near Lauren Park and North Manor Avenue said has created quality‑of‑life concerns. Council members debated whether the money should be set aside now or whether quieter paddles, different balls, regulations, or other lower‑cost options should be explored first.
Council discussion and details: Alderman Michael Tierney said the $145,000 addition — described by proponents as a ceiling rather than a guaranteed spend — will finance a study of mitigation techniques and the eventual implementation of measures to reduce sound. "This $145,000 ... will be used to study the mitigation techniques and provide those mitigation methods," Tierney said.
Alderman Bob Denison supported the amendment, saying it provides an opportunity to move facilities away from nearby housing and to address noise. Alderman Drew Andrews argued that more cost‑effective mitigation and regulatory approaches might be available and urged further study before committing the full amount; he voted against the amendment.
Alderman Jeanne Edwards said she had opposed the initial allocation but that learning the funds would be used for a study made her more comfortable. Alderman Michelle Hirsch and others warned that delaying the allocation could push construction into the summer, potentially forcing court closures and lost public access.
Funding source and fiscal context: During debate, Alderman Denison noted the funds come from the city’s recreation fund, which he said stands at about $1.5 million; he characterized the transfer as consistent with the fund’s purpose to build and improve recreational facilities. Council members repeatedly described the $830,000 figure as a maximum that city staff would seek to reduce where possible.
Environmental review and next steps: The council adopted a Type II SEQR determination (Resolution 41 of 02/2025), which clears the project from additional state environmental review under 6 NYCRR § 617.5. City staff were directed to proceed with project implementation under the approved budget and to carry out the planned mitigation study.
Votes at a glance: Amendment to Resolution 33 (increase to $830,000) — Passed 8–1 (dissent: Alderman Drew Andrews). Resolution 33 as amended (budget transfer to Parks and Recreation) — Passed 8–1. Resolution 41 (SEQR Type II determination) — Passed 9–0.
Community reaction and context: Council members cited frequent regional growth of pickleball courts and local demand for recreational amenities. Opponents urged exploring quieter equipment and regulatory approaches used in other municipalities; supporters emphasized completing the park rehabilitation and resolving existing noise complaints.
The council did not specify a timeline for the mitigation study’s completion; staff were expected to develop recommendations as the project proceeds.

