A city applied for and received $4 million in federal funding for the construction of an athletic facility in the inner city. The funds were granted pursuant to a federal statute providing grants for recreational facilities within the inner city. An appropriate site was chosen for the facility, and the city council earmarked $3 million for the project. At the same time, the council set aside $1 million of the grant to enhance waterfront property for use by the general public by adding walkways, bikeways, a small park, and a retail facility providing sports equipment rentals, such as roller blades and kayaks. The funds from the retail site are to be channeled back into the inner city recreational site. The athletic facility site was one mile inland from the waterfront property, which was accessible from the inner city by a system of subways and sidewalks. The council, in making its allocation of the federal funding, determined that its plan promoted the health and recreation of the general public. The federal government disputed the allocation of funds and succeeded in having the funds frozen after arguing in federal court that the council's plan was in violation of the terms of the grant. The city files a motion with the federal court seeking release of the funds so that the plan can be implemented as conceived by the council.

At the federal court hearing on the city's motion, what is the most likely result?