Parks board tables artificial-turf feasibility study, asks environmental board review

The Parks and Recreation Board on Sept. 10 voted to table consideration of an artificial-turf feasibility study and requested the county's Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) review the full study before any recommendation goes to county council.

NV5 project manager Anya Pastushevska presented the study's scope, which evaluated natural and synthetic options, field configurations, lighting, accessibility and phased costs for North Mesa and Overlook Parks. Pastushevska said the study combined site analysis, focused stakeholder interviews (including Los Alamos Public Schools and youth soccer), two community surveys (the first collected 216 responses) and multiple public meetings to produce framework plans and phased cost estimates. She summarized the report as a "flexible data-informed roadmap" and said cost phases were sized to roughly $5 million per phase assuming a 2028 start date for construction.

Presenters and staff noted the study's breadth: it includes base costs for grading, drainage and ADA improvements and separate line items for synthetic turf installation. During the presentation the consultants pointed out that synthetic products vary in environmental performance and recyclability and recommended considering higher-quality, cradle-to-cradle products to limit lifecycle impacts.

Public comment included concerns from environmental-board and neighborhood advocates about waste and material disposal, local capacity to handle turf waste and potential health and environmental effects of infill and synthetic surfaces. Dina (a former Parks/Environmental board member) said, "The astounding cost of the synthetic fields and the environmental impacts of it" merit caution. Shannon Blair, chair of the Environmental Sustainability Board, said ESB had not yet had the opportunity to review the study and asked for time to evaluate environmental impacts before the board forwarded any formal recommendation to council.

Board members asked detailed implementation questions during the presentation, including whether irrigation for natural fields was included in cost estimates (staff confirmed irrigation infrastructure was included for natural fields) and requested an apples-to-apples long-term cost-of‑ownership comparison (natural vs. synthetic) for council. Several board members noted community interest in expanded play hours and earlier season use for school sports as motivations for considering synthetic turf in locations used heavily in shoulder seasons.

After discussion a board member moved to table the study and present it to the Environmental Sustainability Board for review prior to forwarding anything to county council. The motion was seconded; roll call passed unanimously.

Staff will provide the full study packet, cost tables and appendices to ESB and schedule review; the board emphasized that the consultant report is a framework and not a binding master plan or final recommendation.