Veterans Park field study: city explores PFAS‑free artificial turf, council asks for lifecycle and drainage comparisons

City staff briefed the City Council on proposals to address chronic wet conditions at Veterans Park athletic fields and to close a roughly $115,000 funding gap to complete the current improvement package.

Silkem Kirschner, project manager for transportation and open space, and the recreation and parks director described three CIP projects at Veterans Park (field drainage and upgrades, new storage, and field surfacing). Kirschner said recent state legislation bans PFAS-containing artificial turf, but staff identified a PFAS‑free turf product that uses a proprietary soft‑wood infill intended to perform for the full life of the turf without crumb-rubber infill.

“We would be the first PFOS free artificial turf in the state,” Kirschner said, describing the vendor’s claim that the wood infill both absorbs water and reduces the bounce associated with crumb-rubber infill.

Staff provided preliminary cost estimates: a vendor quote for turf materials of about $335,000, a subbase estimate (aggregate and grading) of roughly $116,000 based on recent local installations, and engineering fees of about $44,700 — bringing the turf‑option subtotal to approximately $500,000 (not including the other park improvements). By contrast the one‑time cost of building a new grass field was estimated in staff materials at $175,000–$225,000. Staff noted a remaining CIP funding gap of roughly $115,000 to deliver the complete project as scoped.

Staff and the public also discussed maintenance and life‑cycle questions. The parks staff estimated current mowing time for a soccer field at roughly 180 minutes per week per field (mowing only; does not include striping and other work). The vendor literature supplied by staff said the wood infill is intended to last the life of the turf and to be less prone to “splash” or transfer into players’ gear compared with crumb rubber; staff said they would request references and lifecycle data from the vendor.

Councilors and several public speakers urged the city to compare alternatives before committing: prepare a life‑cycle cost comparison (capital, annual maintenance and replacement costs over the expected service life), study whether improved drainage and irrigation could make a grass field perform acceptably, gather references for the vendor’s wood infill, and estimate any environmental tradeoffs (material manufacture, disposal, and microplastics/resin questions). One councilor asked that staff present a per‑day cost‑of‑use estimate to show the financial trade‑offs if turf allows substantially higher field‑use days per year.

No formal action was taken; councilors agreed the city should continue scoping the turf option while also developing a grass‑field alternative with drainage and lifecycle comparisons. Staff said the next step is to gather vendor references, produce a lifecycle maintenance/ownership cost matrix, and include drainage-improvement options and potential grant/partner funding sources.

Ending: Staff will return with a vendor due‑diligence report (references and lifecycle data), a drainage/grass-improvement option with lifecycle costs, and a final cost comparison before any final funding or construction decision is made.