Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines $51,000 ramp for Monument Park gazebo after residents press for alternatives
Summary
After hours of public comment and council debate about accessibility, historic character and cost, the Dexter City Council voted down a $51,000 contract for a permanent accessible ramp at the Monument Park gazebo, with supporters and opponents both urging alternative solutions and preservation of memorial pavers.
Council considered a proposal from KAB Enterprises for the construction of an accessible ramp at the Monument Park gazebo for an amount not to exceed $51,000. The item drew multiple public commenters and an extended council discussion about accessibility, visual impact, historic fabric and alternative approaches.
Bill Etze, a longtime resident who later spelled his last name for the record as "E T Z E," urged the council to postpone the project and gather wider community input. "I would request that you postpand this particular project until a later date so you get input from your community, your voters, the people that live right here," he said, arguing that the gazebo predates ADA and that removable solutions might meet needs without altering the structure.
Dave Steel, another longtime Dexter resident, proposed less-permanent, aluminum options that could be installed for use and removed afterward. "We can get aluminum ramp that if needed, you know, if someone asks for that, they can have it put in, use it for the occasion, take it down," he said, while warning that required rails and safety features must be included if permanent access is added.
City staff and several council members said the design selected was intended to minimize visual impact and to reuse existing brick pavers. Justin, the city manager, told council that the winning bid included provisions to preserve and reuse the pavers and that the ramp would connect to the Central Street side near accessible parking.
Supporters of the motion said independent access for people with mobility challenges matters. "People want independence and want mobility," one council member said in arguing for the contract. Opponents emphasized aesthetics and urged more public input and exploration of lower-impact options.
When the motion to approve the $51,000 contract was put to a roll-call vote the motion failed on a 4–3 vote (three council members voted yes; four voted no). The council did not adopt the contract; members asked staff to explore alternatives and to ensure any future proposal preserves memorial bricks and minimizes park impacts.
What's next: Council directed staff to continue working on design options, with particular attention to preserving existing pavers and exploring removable or less visually intrusive approaches. The item may return to a future agenda after additional design and community input.
