Commission debates $788,000 tennis-center upgrade as residents urge keeping $200,000 state grant

The City Commission spent a large portion of its May 13 meeting debating planned renovations at the Lighthouse Point Tennis Center, a $788,000 project that combines new chain‑link fencing, stormwater infrastructure and conversion of courts to a hydro‑port irrigation system supported by a $200,000 state grant.

Residents who use the courts told the commission the upgrades are critical. "The hydro court is a must," said Steve Neuse, a Lighthouse Point resident and CPA, arguing the system would save water, reduce clay maintenance and improve safety. Dana Pollock, a Tennis Advisory Board member, told the commission the center serves 400 members and a broad range of ages and warned that returning the grant could jeopardize future state funding: "We've received a grant from the State…If you give that grant back to the state, we're never getting another grant again," she said.

Opponents and skeptical residents pressed for more fiscal transparency and alternatives. "The original quote to today…tripled," said George Casas, a nearby resident, urging the city to solicit additional bidders. Bill Spinelli and Lisa Rast questioned the overall scope and suggested cheaper options such as hard courts; Spinelli asked for a clear project‑cost breakdown and whether the city had properly vetted vendors.

Staff and several commissioners defended proceeding with the project while acknowledging concerns. A staff breakdown provided at the meeting listed fence construction at about $154,221.95, approximately $300,000 for the hydro courts, and roughly $300,000 for stormwater improvements, with a 5% contingency. One commissioner summarized the financing: the $200,000 grant reduces the out‑of‑pocket expense to the city to about $588,000.

A commissioner opposed to the project framed the question as one of priorities, saying the revised plan now covers only 44% of the courts and has nearly doubled in cost compared with earlier estimates. That speaker urged the commission to reconsider the vote approving the project and pointed to competing capital needs such as bridge repairs and seawall work. Commissioners debated whether returning the state grant would carry administrative or political consequences; staff said the grant must be spent and reimbursed, but also explained they could pursue additional, smaller state grants later if the current scope is completed and closed out.

The commission did not reopen its prior approval at the meeting. Commissioners said the project has been in the capital improvement program for several years, that bidding ran for 34 days, and that procurement law limits the city's flexibility when only a single bid is received. Several commissioners emphasized infrastructure needs citywide while acknowledging the public's strong interest in preserving the tennis center as a community amenity.

Next steps: staff said they will proceed with the contract under the city's procurement rules and will post the presentation materials on the city's website. Residents who spoke during public comment were encouraged to follow up during the final public‑comment period and at upcoming budget hearings.