Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn County council backs redevelopment match for Bright Meadows Park; smaller final gap request fails
Summary
Council authorized redevelopment spending and several park board contributions to secure a $1 million state match for Bright Meadows Park, approving $25,000 and larger park board allocations but voting down a last‑minute $16,400 county gap request. Officials said the project would add ADA‑accessible trail improvements and other amenities.
Dearborn County Council voted to permit redevelopment spending and approved multiple park board allocations aimed at securing a state matching grant for Bright Meadows Park, but declined a narrow last‑dollar county request.
Ross Calbert, president of the Dearborn County Park Board, said the board had nearly completed fundraising to reach the state match requirement and asked for the county’s participation. The redevelopment commission had already voted to provide $100,000 as part of the match; council approved the redevelopment commission’s request to spend that amount.
Council also approved a $25,000 allocation from the park board’s own budget and an additional $205,000 commitment from park board funds (account 1179) to bring the project closer to the required match. Calbert described the larger effort as collaborative and said the park partners had raised funds from private donors and community foundations.
Nicole (planning and redevelopment staff) told the council the application is due August 1 and that the state and federal review could take about a year; engineering drawings would begin in late 2027 with construction expected in spring 2028. She said the project priorities include widening and completing an ADA‑compliant loop trail, pickleball and inclusive playground features, fitness equipment and an amphitheater.
Separately, the park group asked the county to approve a final $16,400 gap payment so the grant application would be fully funded if other partners did not come through. That motion was debated and failed on a roll‑call vote; council members spoke about the board’s prior commitments and the role of the tourism bureau in possibly filling remaining needs.
What’s next: staff will proceed with the application work in coordination with the park board and consultant, and the county’s redevelopment and park board contributions will be recorded in the project budget. The county noted the failed $16,400 motion could be revisited if other partner commitments changed before the application deadline.
