Residents say city didn’t meaningfully engage before naming Alameda Park for pickleball complex

Speakers at a Burnsville City Council meeting urged the council to delay a planned April 15 decision on the location of a proposed pickleball complex, saying the city has not meaningfully engaged the community and that public input was not factored into staff recommendations.

A resident who identified herself as a member of Alameda Eco Advocates told the council, “We are not anti pickleball. We are anti pickleball location at LA Made Network.” She said her group has submitted comments, filed dozens of FOIA requests and met with the city manager and staff but that the city has not responded to many concerns.

The resident said she and other advocates met with the city manager, “Aaron” and “Daryl” and were told the comments posted after a council work session were not included in the staff presentation. “Imagine our shock,” she said, “when we were told by that same parks director that the comments made after the work session had not been factored into the decision formal presentation by your staff or consultant.” She added that several Parks and Natural Resources Commission meetings had been canceled until after the April 15 deadline.

Ed Stern, a 17-year Frontier Lane resident who said he is a member of Alamo Magnet Eco Advocates and a registered volunteer in the city’s natural-resources volunteer programs, told the council he expects the city is proposing to build the pickleball complex at “the most complicated location,” which he said would raise mitigation and maintenance costs. Citing figures presented by city staff at an Oct. 15, 2024, work session, Stern said maintenance of the asset is estimated at $291,000 over the life of the facility.

“The 2025 City of Burnsville budget included a beginning balance in the Parks Investment Fund of $5,300,000,” Stern said. He also said the budget projects dedication fees of about $100,000 per year for 2025–2028 and argued the city would be spending a substantial share of that fund for a single amenity at one park. “This is a hefty price tag for one amenity at one park out of 76 parks in Burnsville,” he said.

Speakers asked for a substantive, two‑way meeting with the council before the final decision, noting repeated attempts at engagement including emailed comments and follow-up requests. The resident said some planned follow-up (including a promised January meeting) did not occur and that staff kept notes on a pad but did not deliver the answers they were told would be provided.

Council members and staff were identified in public comments but no formal vote or council action on the location was recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. Speakers repeatedly asked the council to schedule an agenda item before April 15 to allow discussion of location alternatives, cost estimates and the record of public input.

The meeting record excerpt includes requests for outstanding public-record responses and concerns that online materials and staff outreach characterized Alameda as the selected site despite speakers’ claims that other locations were still being considered. Speakers asked the city to clarify what it counts as community engagement and to explain how public comments were considered in the decision process.

No formal motion or vote on the project location appears in the provided transcript excerpt. Public commenters requested the council direct staff to provide a clear, itemized accounting of costs, to disclose which comments were considered in staff recommendations, and to convene a substantive meeting with advocates before any final decision is announced.

The council's next scheduled actions and any staff responses to the requests described here were not included in the transcript excerpt provided.