The Anderson Redevelopment Commission voted 3‑2 on Nov. 25 to pledge additional redevelopment funding toward a revised Athletic Park project, approving resolution ARC 06‑25 after more than an hour of presentations, commissioner questions and public comment.

Mayor (identified in the transcript as “Mayor”) opened the discussion by presenting a 30% site design prepared by HWC and said the city has applied to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) for a READY grant. The mayor told the commission the project’s scope has been refined and that earlier cost estimates near $54 million have been reduced to about $45 million; he said the city previously received $1.5 million from IEDC and is seeking an additional $4 million through the READY program. “This is a 30% design at this point that you have in front of you,” he said.

Commissioners focused on two primary questions: how the city will demonstrate demand and economic return, and how the project will be financed. Commissioner Pete Pitar said he was not satisfied with the materials provided and asked repeatedly for marketing or economic‑impact documentation. “I don’t see a business plan,” Pitar said, adding that past projects on the West Side have at times sat underused. Several commissioners asked for clearer estimates of long‑term operating costs and who would pay them.

Staff and the mayor responded that some park features would remain free but that certain aquatic amenities (for example, the lazy‑river portion and some ticketed activities) could carry modest fees to help offset operational costs. Officials also described a likely mix of funding: roughly $2.6 million drawn from the general fund over several years, additional redevelopment/TIF funds and expected bonding to spread capital costs over about 20 years. The mayor said TIF revenue and other grant matches make bonding feasible but acknowledged there was no guarantee of IEDC support.

Residents at public comment reiterated concerns about process and outreach. Kelly Kelly, who gave her address at the meeting, asked why quality‑of‑life metrics were not included in the materials submitted for the READY grant and pressed staff on how the city would measure success. “How in your position can you say that you don’t know how to measure quality of life metrics when you’re part of the REDI grant in this project?” Kelly said. Sherilyn Horning and other commenters said they had not seen comprehensive community input opportunities and asked for written records of public meetings.

The roll‑call vote on ARC 06‑25 was: Richard Sims — yes; David McGee — no; Kenneth Davenport — yes; David Ikes — yes; Pete Pitar — no. Commissioners voting no cited the late delivery of materials, the increase in the city’s share of capital costs and the need for broader community engagement.

What’s next: staff said they will provide the additional documentation requested by commissioners, and the mayor confirmed that the project will return for further approvals as financing details and grant commitments firm up. The commission’s approval authorizes the pledge and allows staff to supplement the IEDC application by the stated internal deadlines.

The commission approved the resolution by a 3‑2 vote and proceeded to consider other agenda items.