Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ken-Caryl board backs investigation into Bradford pickleball noise; staff recommends third‑party sound study
Summary
District staff recommended hiring a third‑party acoustic consultant to analyze noise from Bradford pickleball courts after residents described persistent, high‑frequency impacts; no formal mitigation decision was made.
District staff recommended that the Ken‑Caryl Ranch Metropolitan District hire an outside acoustic consultant to study noise emanating from the Bradford pickleball courts and evaluate mitigation options, following residents’ complaints that court noise is causing sleep and health disturbances.
The district’s operations staff presented a summary of actions taken so far: changing to a softer, tournament‑approved ball and setting summer hours for the courts from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Staff said the district also discussed installing a privacy fence (estimated at about $12,000) and targeted acoustic barriers (roughly $24,000) but recommended first commissioning a third‑party sound study to determine the best steps.
The district’s staff member Chad said the district has a 2024 quote of about $5,500 for a professional recommendation and expects a modest increase for an updated proposal. He recommended continuing investigation and likely proceeding with the study so the district could identify objective, site‑specific mitigation.
Resident Stephanie (identified in public comment) described two years of disturbance from the courts and cited published acoustic research distinguishing pickleball noise from tennis. “The impulsive sound produced by the impact of [a] hard plastic ball on the panel can cause significant noise impact for those living near the courts,” she said, and described effects she attributed to long‑term exposure, including sleep disruption and heightened physiological reactions.
Other residents and attendees urged the district to select a consultant familiar with pickleball’s unique acoustic signature and to consider conducting baseline studies at other sites (for example, the planned pivot‑wall courts at Community Park) to compare environments. Board members asked staff to clarify what specific, actionable mitigation a study could support before spending district funds.
No motion or vote was taken on mitigation measures at the meeting; staff said it would investigate additional quotes and report back. The district noted that any construction or barrier installation that exceeds staff procurement thresholds would return to the board for approval.
