Los Alamos board hears artificial-turf feasibility study; asks staff to submit comments to Parks & Rec by Oct. 2

Consultants presented a feasibility study on artificial turf for two Los Alamos County facilities and the Environmental Sustainability Board authorized staff to collect and submit the board’s comments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board by Oct. 2.

The consultant team summarized the study’s scope and community outreach. “The study was commissioned due to increasing demand for high quality multi use athletic fields capable of supporting a growing number of teams, leagues, and year round programming at North Mesa Sports Complex and Overlook Park,” said Lisa Gavioli, project manager with the consultant team. The consultants emphasized that the report is guidance, not a county commitment to install turf.

The report said the team held five public meetings, focused interviews with Los Alamos Public Schools athletes and coaches and the Los Alamos youth soccer league, a community survey that received more than 200 responses and a follow-up feedback survey with over 140 responses. The consultants identified benefits cited by many respondents—longer playable seasons, more consistent surfaces for high-school teams, and tournament opportunities—and concerns including higher surface temperatures in summer, potential abrasions and infections, presence of PFAS (so-called “forever chemicals”), microplastic shedding, and end-of-life disposal.

Consultants recommended a cautious, site-by-site approach rather than replacing all natural turf. Their conceptual framework proposes considering synthetic turf for specific playing fields (the study noted Lou Caviglia and Bomber Field at North Mesa as candidates and identified Hope Field, Xlavato and Dara Jones field considerations at Overlook Park), offering a mix of artificial and natural fields, and pairing turf decisions with site reconfiguration to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and add amenities. The team recommended product selection guided by recognized environmental standards and life-cycle considerations—referencing cradle-to-cradle certified options and the latest third-party health and environmental research.

The presentation addressed maintenance, phasing and costs. The consultants said cost estimates are broken into phases so the county could prioritize elements in manageable funding chunks; early planning assumed phased packages in the multi‑million-dollar range so jurisdictions could pursue funding and construction over several years. On maintenance trade-offs, the report noted synthetic turf supports more hours of use and needs less irrigation and no pesticides, while natural turf demands resting time, irrigation, pesticides and ongoing sod replacement in high‑use areas.

Board members asked for clarification on disinfection, heat and recyclability. Todd Smith, the study civil engineer, said disinfecting turf is rarely done in the dry, sunny Rocky Mountain climate: “Almost nobody does it in the Rocky Mountain region in the arid West because...whatever it was that might be there died right away.” On recyclability and chemicals, consultants said modern products have reduced levels of concerning chemicals compared with older systems and that some manufacturers now market recyclable or cradle‑to‑cradle certified systems, but public speakers urged caution about industry claims.

Resident Dina Pessenson spoke during public comment raising health and end‑of‑life concerns: “It’s not fair to say it’s recyclable on Cradle to Cradle when we know we can’t recycle half the stuff we’re collecting, and we can’t afford to recycle it,” she said, urging more local evidence of successful recycling and integrated pest management before decisions are made.

After questions and discussion the board took a procedural vote. The Environmental Sustainability Board moved to “authorize Chair Blair and staff liaison Angelica Gurule to collect comments from the Environmental Sustainability Board and submit them to the Parks and Rec Board no later than 10/02/2025.” The motion passed by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.

The consultants said next steps include incorporating board feedback, returning to Parks and Rec on Oct. 9, and presenting a final report for consideration in October. The board asked staff to collect member comments by Sept. 30 so comments could be compiled and delivered for the Oct. 2 deadline.

Notes and clarifications: the study team repeatedly emphasized they reviewed only North Mesa and Overlook Park, not all county fields; they recommended retaining many natural turf fields and evaluating specific fields for synthetic turf as part of a broader master‑planning process. The report includes a “myths and facts” appendix and cited third‑party research on PFAS, microplastics, infection risk, and recyclability (resources listed in the report’s Appendix G).