Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferrysburg council declines to commit to $710,000 Firebarn Park grant after split vote
Summary
Council debated a $710,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to convert tennis courts to six ADA-accessible pickleball courts and add a pavilion; members raised concerns about the city’s required 50% match (~$355,000), packet transparency and neighborhood noise. A motion to pursue the grant failed after two votes.
The Ferrysburg City Council debated whether to ask for a state Land and Water Conservation Fund grant for Phase 2 of Firebarn Park and ultimately voted not to submit a resolution that would commit the city to a 50% local match.
Staff described Phase 2 as converting existing tennis courts into six ADA-accessible pickleball courts, adding a picnic pavilion, connecting concrete walkways and interpretive signage. City manager Craig told council the project estimate distributed to members was roughly $710,000 and "this grant requires a 50 percent match," meaning a city match of about $355,000 if the application were successful.
Supporters said applying is necessary to be eligible for the funds and permits the city to keep pursuing park improvements. William, the staff presenter on park projects, said the project responds to strong local demand for pickleball courts and that courts would be ADA-compliant; staff also offered to explore fencing or other noise‑mitigation measures.
Opponents questioned the cost estimates and timing. One council member said the engineer’s estimate was significantly higher than comparable recent projects in the area and noted the packet did not clearly show Phase 2 budget details, which reduced confidence in committing public dollars. Another said, "I don't think we should spend $350,000 for pickelball courts when we have other needs," and suggested alternatives such as scaling back the court count, seeking additional fundraising, or prioritizing a pavilion or splash pad instead.
Council members discussed options including scaling the project, pursuing outside matching funds, conditioning acceptance of a grant on passage of a street millage, and whether declining an award later would harm future grant prospects. Craig described the public improvement fund balance and projected impacts across multiple fiscal years and warned that accepting a grant and later declining it might be viewed unfavorably by some grant programs.
The council first voted on a resolution to submit the LWCF application and commit the local match; that motion failed. A later amended motion — to submit the grant application but condition final acceptance of the grant on successful passage of the city street millage — was likewise put to a vote and failed.
Next steps: Council did not approve the grant application at this meeting; staff can still refine the project scope, pursue alternative funding or present a scaled proposal for future consideration. The council indicated it might revisit the park project and specific funding approaches after further cost-reduction analysis or if alternative match funding is identified.
