Consultants present artificial-turf feasibility study for North Mesa and Overlook Park; board to send comments to Parks and Rec

Consultants from NV5 presented an artificial-turf feasibility study for North Mesa Sports Complex and Overlook Park to the Los Alamos County Environmental Sustainability Board on Sept. 18, detailing conceptual site plans, phased cost estimates and sustainability analyses and asking the board to send comments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board by Oct. 2. “This study is not meant to be a master plan and does not commit the county to any future decisions,” Lisa Gavioli, project manager with NV5, told the board. The study examined only the two named facilities and aimed to inform future decisions rather than require them.

The consultants summarized a five-meeting community engagement period, targeted interviews with Los Alamos Public Schools athletes and coaches and two public surveys that together generated more than 340 responses. “We received over 200 responses to the first survey and over 140 to the follow-up,” Gavioli said, and the report includes appendix tables and public-comment summaries. School athletes and coaches told the team they strongly support having some artificial-turf fields so seasons can begin earlier and playing surfaces remain level despite gopher damage, the consultants said.

The report recommends a limited, phased approach: conceptual reconfiguration of fields and site amenities, selective installation of synthetic turf (the team was asked to assess up to five turf fields across the two sites), and a menu of improvements that could be pursued in phases. The consultants provided phased cost estimates intended to allow the county to fund elements in $3–$5 million chunks; the report also describes options for amenities such as restrooms, concessions, EV parking and a cloverleaf-style layout meant to separate pedestrian circulation from vehicles.

On sustainability and health concerns, the consultants presented a balanced summary of third-party literature rather than original testing. The study identifies commonly raised issues—possible PFAS in materials, microplastic release, higher surface temperatures in heat, and perception of increased abrasions or skin infections—and pairs those concerns with findings from industry literature and standards. Gavioli said the report recommends selecting products with recognized environmental certifications (for example, Cradle to Cradle–certified materials where feasible) and relying on current industry standards when selecting turf systems. The team also summarized a “myths and facts” table in the report (table 3.3) to place perceived risks in context.

Todd Smith, the project civil engineer on the team, described regional maintenance realities: in the Rocky Mountain arid climate “there isn’t much need” for disinfection because dryness and sun reduce microbial survival, though he said wetter regions use more routine disinfection. On lifecycle and end-of-life concerns, the consultants told the board that some manufacturers now offer fully recyclable systems and that product selection influences embodied carbon, reuse and recyclability.

Public commenters and some board members raised reservations. Resident Dina Pessenson said she was concerned about long-term disposal, recyclability and undisclosed material ingredients and asked whether local recycling capacity and long-term waste disposal costs had been realistically accounted for. “How much of the high school field was recycled when it was removed within six years when we were told it would be 8–10 years? None of it was recycled,” Pessenson said. The report notes recyclability as a design criterion but also calls for consulting current research during final product selection.

Board members asked practical questions about budgeting, phasing and what would be included in a master plan. Joe Chandler asked whether the study assumed a single large overhaul or a menu of separable turf and site projects; Gavioli responded that the report provides phased cost estimates and a “menu” so the county can pursue pieces independently, and Smith said the phasing assumed realistic multi‑year funding windows. Board members also discussed local-specific issues—existing reclaimed-water irrigation at some fields, local pet and dog‑park interactions (consultants recommended keeping separate dog‑training areas away from turf), and summer surface temperatures.

The Environmental Sustainability Board approved a motion directing Chair Shannon Blair and staff liaison Angelica Gurule to collect comments from board members, condense overlap as appropriate and submit the boardʼs comments to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board no later than Oct. 2, 2025; the motion passed on a voice vote. The consultants plan to return to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board Oct. 9 and to present a final report to county council on Oct. 28 for consideration and potential approval.

The report and its appendices include conceptual plans, comparative maintenance tables (artificial vs. natural turf), recommended standards and a list of third-party resources the team cited. The consultants emphasized that the county retain a mix of natural and synthetic fields and did not recommend converting all fields to artificial turf.

For follow-up, the board will review the full feasibility report and submit comments by Sept. 30 to staff for compilation before the Oct. 2 deadline; county staff will pass combined feedback to Parks and Rec for their Oct. 9 meeting. The consultants and staff identified additional next steps such as master-planning, formal product selection tied to health and environmental standards, and further local analysis of maintenance and disposal logistics.