Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atherton committee debates donor‑funded pickleball courts, placement and contractor access
Summary
Committee members discussed donor interest in two additional pickleball courts, contractor estimates ranging from roughly $150,000 to $300,000 depending on surface and site work, and concerns that an existing vendor’s heavy lesson schedule limits recreational access to courts; staff will review contract language and bring options next month.
At the Parks & Recreation meeting the committee weighed whether to add two donor‑funded pickleball courts and where to place them in James Park, and members flagged ongoing operational conflicts with the town’s court vendor.
Don reported contractor estimates: originally two concrete courts at about $200,000 or asphalt at $150,000; moving court placement to avoid the back corner and additional site work could add roughly $50,000, and further items (sound mitigation, shed replacement) could raise the total toward $225,000–$300,000. Don summarized the most recent contractor feedback and said the group planned to approach a potential donor to confirm interest.
Several members urged caution because winter usage has been low and usage historically spikes in summer. One member said the committee should see summer usage data before committing to new courts. Members also noted there are already four upgraded courts and questioned whether two more are necessary.
The committee debated conflicts with the town’s long‑standing vendor Michael, who reserves multiple courts for lessons. The chair observed, "If it's only for the benefit of Michael, then we should say, Michael, you cannot reserve your fourth court unless it's [the] clay court," reflecting concern that lessons and reservations reduce recreational players’ access. Staff said the contract is structured as a two‑plus‑one renewal and contains termination provisions; staff will review contract language and report back with options for restricting or clarifying peak‑time reservations.
Members described practical reservation problems: wait‑list names do not always get cleared when users fail to show, and lesson bookings can hold courts even when not used. The committee assigned a subcommittee and staff follow‑up to confirm the donor’s interest and to return with a written site plan, refined cost estimates and proposed contract options at the next meeting.
No formal vote was taken; the committee agreed to continue deliberations and pursue donor and contract follow‑up.
