Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local business owners press DDA over Thornapple River bridge delays; township says decking work is county-controlled
Summary
Jam Bean Coffee owner told the DDA that repeated delays and lane closures on the Thornapple River pedestrian-bridge work "have crushed my small business," and asked the board to investigate scope changes and improve communication. Township officials said the township’s portion is complete and the county controls redecking work and timelines.
Business owners and residents used the public-comment portion of the Cascade Charter Township DDA meeting to press the board for answers about ongoing work on the Thornapple River pedestrian bridge and the effect of construction on nearby businesses.
Doug Lee, owner of Jam Bean Coffee, told the board the bridge work began March 17 and that the project had been promised for repeated mid-May and mid-June completion dates that were missed. "This delay hasn't just postponed my season opening, it's crushed my small business," Lee said, asking the DDA to "investigate who changed the scope of this project, secure a firm timeline and communicate to those who are affected."
Lee said he was told by county engineers that the work scope had been expanded to include grinding the bridge, applying an epoxy coating and resurfacing, and that as of the prior week bids and clear funding for the added decking work had not been in place. He said those scope changes and uncertain timelines left his business without customers and without clear recourse.
Board members acknowledged the hardship. One board member said the township’s portion of the bridge work is complete and that the remaining decking/redecking is controlled by the Kent County Road Commission. Grace, a board member, disputed statements that the bridge width was expanded after construction began, saying the additional width and decking were part of earlier design phases and reiterating that the decking contract and schedule are county responsibilities: "this is completely out of our control because the roads again are owned and operated and controlled by the county." Staff said they would follow up with the road commission about whether cones and lane restrictions could be adjusted if county timelines are long.
Resident Jim Vanderwal raised winter-safety concerns, asking what plans exist for snow removal given the bridge’s narrow lanes and solid side walls. Board members agreed to raise snow-removal and clearance questions with the county and suggested inviting a road-commission representative to a future meeting.
Why it matters: business owners reported measurable revenue loss and stressed that seasonal businesses—like ice cream shops—depend on a short high-traffic season. The exchange illuminated limits of township authority when county-owned infrastructure work affects local commerce and raised demand for clearer interagency communication.
Follow up: Staff committed to contacting the Kent County Road Commission about the decking schedule and the possibility of moving cones if the county’s work will be delayed; the board did not take formal action on the public comment but acknowledged the need for clearer timelines and communication.
