Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Isanti council sends Whisper Ridge Park back to park board after 101-response survey
Summary
After a 12-day city survey that drew 101 responses and split neighborhood opinion, the Isanti City Council directed staff to return Whisper Ridge Park to the park board for a plan addressing surfacing, accessibility, parking and future uses instead of taking immediate action.
The Isanti City Council directed staff to return Whisper Ridge Park to the park and recreation board for further planning after reviewing a city survey that drew 101 responses.
City staff said the 12-day survey, conducted July 29–August 9, found 36 respondents visit the park about once per week, 44 respondents said they did not know the park existed, and the basketball court was the most-used amenity (38 responses). On the question of returning the park to green space while a larger plan is developed, 56.4% (57 respondents) opposed that option while 44 respondents favored it.
City staff described the park’s physical problems: large cracks across both the basketball and tennis courts, uneven surfacing that causes pooling, sand and sediment in play areas, fencing gaps that allow balls to roll under, and pathway unevenness that limits accessibility. Staff noted the park component had been removed from the city’s CIP in 2018, which shaped prior recommendations to stop investing in the courts.
Council members discussed short-term repairs (crack filling and resurfacing), adding seating, and whether to repurpose the tennis area (ideas discussed included converting part to pickleball). Members raised neighborhood impacts including limited parking and potential noise from new uses; staff said parking near Whisper Ridge is constrained and long-term improvements such as boardwalks would be costly.
Public Works staff said crews have cleared dog waste from inside the fenced court area on several occasions, and neighbors reported they had not observed that problem. Council emphasized weighing the cost of waiting (higher reconstruction costs over time) against immediate, lower-cost repairs to extend usable life for a year or two.
Rather than make an immediate capital decision, the council voted to send the issue back to the park board and asked the board to provide options and estimated costs for repair and alternative uses.
The park board is expected to return recommendations to the council for a follow-up decision.
