Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County awards $5.69 million contract to renovate Bluemont Park tennis courts; public commenters applaud but raise monarch way‑side and pickleball concerns
Summary
The County Board approved a $5,687,971 contract award to NASTOS Construction for Bluemont Park tennis court renovations plus contingency. Public testimony praised the upgrade but raised concerns that a designated Monarch Wayside would be affected and urged planning for pickleball facilities.
The Arlington County Board on Oct. 21 approved a construction contract with NASTOS Construction for renovation of the Bluemont Park tennis complex, authorizing a $5,687,971 award and a contingency allocation of $796,315.94 (total contract authorization $6,484,286.94). The vote was unanimous.
Staff said the project replaces nine existing courts, upgrades lighting to LED, improves the parking lot with permeable pavers and adds an auxiliary building with restrooms and a ranger station. The design work included an effort to move infrastructure out of the formally defined Resource Protection Area, added a reforestation buffer with 131 new trees, and improved accessible routes and stormwater management features.
Public comment was broadly supportive of improved tennis facilities. Michael Grace and John Segerman, tennis players and local advocates, urged timely approval so courts can be rebuilt. At the same time, Bernie Burn, who described himself as an environmental advocate, asked the board to delay the award until the county preserves or replaces a small, designated Monarch Wayside in the south end of the site area that contains common milkweed. County staff responded that the project team plans to replace the wayside function through redesigned bioswales and planting areas and would provide a detailed planting list to concerned residents.
Another speaker, Tim Dellinger, urged the county to ensure the project did not preclude a comparable dedicated flagship facility for pickleball, arguing the county should plan larger‑scale facilities for pickleball where feasible. Board members acknowledged both the tennis community’s need and the growth of pickleball but said larger facility decisions and CIP tradeoffs are part of a separate public‑spaces master plan and capital‑planning process.
Why it matters: the courts are a high‑use, community recreation asset; the renovation addresses safety, accessibility and long‑term maintenance costs while prompting trade‑off questions about natural‑resource impacts and future court allocation.
What’s next: staff will complete contract execution and coordinate construction; they will provide requested planting plans and continue coordination with environmental and recreation stakeholders.
