Los Alamos officials outline $2.7 million Brewer Arena renovation; equestrian groups press for design changes
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
County staff presented plans for a multi-part renovation of Brewer Arena focused on safety and ADA compliance; stable owners and the Equine and Livestock Working Group urged more stakeholder input on sightlines, horse crossings and materials.
Los Alamos County staff presented a plan Oct. 23 to rebuild and improve Brewer Arena after a July 2024 structural assessment found the pavilion and grandstand unsafe, saying the project will include a new covered grandstand, accessible restrooms, an announcer’s booth, improved pedestrian circulation and space for food trucks.
The presentation by Russell Naranjo, project manager for capital projects in the county facilities division, outlined a design funded in part by a $150,000 grant from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration and a county allocation currently described as $2.7 million. Naranjo said the construction bid came in at $1,934,000 and that the county is “right now looking at a total budget of $2,400,000,” with an approximate contingency of 18 percent to account for price escalation. He said demolition of the unsafe grandstand was completed in December 2024 and that construction documents were completed and advertised for bids in September 2025.
Why it matters: Brewer Arena hosts the county rodeo and year-round equestrian use. County staff framed the work as code- and ADA-driven, saying the renovations respond to a county ADA audit and transition plan and to public feedback gathered in multiple listening sessions. Stable owners, the Los Alamos Stable Owners Association (LOSOA) and the Equine and Livestock Working Group (LWIG) argued the design lacks rodeo-specific expertise and sufficient stakeholder review on critical details such as sightlines, animal and handler circulation and the sidewalk surfacing where horses will cross.
What the plan would do: Staff described components that include a new covered pavilion and grandstand designed to meet current codes and ADA standards, a replacement or upgraded announcer’s booth (crow’s nest) with an access bridge separating people from animal pens, renovated restrooms with running water to meet food-vendor requirements within 200 feet, five ADA parking spaces with van-accessible stalls and an ADA-compliant access route, and power receptacles for food trucks. Naranjo said the new grandstand footprint accommodates ADA ramps and redistributes seating into fewer, longer rows; the design provides approximately 768 seats and eight wheelchair spaces in a 10-row configuration, versus an earlier grandstand that had been measured at about 1,000 seats.
County staff emphasized delegated design for prefabricated elements such as bleachers and the announcer’s booth: Wilson and Company prepared performance specifications and conceptual drawings, and a contractor/fabricator would submit stamped shop drawings for review. John McNamara, project manager for Wilson and Company (online), said delegated design is common for prefabricated bleachers and noted the vendor submittal would be reviewed by Wilson and Company for compliance. On parking, McNamara said, “The ADA parking is the, the rest of the general parking is somewhat up to interpretation. The code isn't a 100% clear on how you calculate that.”
Questions from the board and public: Board members asked about contingency for rising construction costs, timeline implications, and whether materials considered for sidewalks could reduce slipperiness for horses. Staff said the contractor bid is valid for 60 days, the contingency is roughly 18%, and that different surfacing options (concrete, asphalt, rubberized systems) were evaluated; concrete was presented as the most durable and lowest-maintenance option, while asphalt or rubberized surfaces may improve footing for horses but increase cost and maintenance demands.
Equestrian groups’ concerns and requests: Lisa Reeder, speaking for LWIG and LOSOA, summarized a timeline of repeated requests for plans and said stakeholders received only limited information until October. Reeder said the working group and LOSOA seek a formal charrette-style review with Wilson and county staff, and asked that the rodeo stock contractor, PRCA (Pro Rodeo Cowboys Association) best-practice guidance, and other rodeo-specific expertise be consulted. Several stable owners and lot licensees said features in the conceptual plans appear to block existing gates, produce poor sightlines for spectators (including wheelchair users), and show sidewalk placement and surfacing that could hinder frequent horse crossings. Wendy Burke Ryan, a LOSOA board member, said, “We are the stable owners association. We have an elected board of 7 people,” and urged timely, substantive engagement. Reeder said the “lack of transparency and communication, the unclear process, and the very limited acceptance of user input has led to really negative feelings surrounding this project.”
Timeline and next steps: Staff said they are not asking for a decision Oct. 23 and plan to return to the Parks and Recreation Board on Nov. 13 for a recommendation to County Council and, if recommended, to seek Council action on Nov. 18. Staff warned that if a construction contract is not approved by about Nov. 25, some elements (canopy, announcer’s booth, bleachers) could be delayed past the 2026 rodeo; if contract approval slips further into 2026, the improvements would not be complete for the event and temporary portable bleachers and other accommodations would be required.
What remains unresolved: Stable owners want earlier and clearer access to full construction drawings, the task order/selection process and the original Wilson scope, specific engineering details for the crow’s nest and catwalk, and formal review by rodeo operational experts. Board members asked staff to gather the requested documents and to meet with LOSOA and LWIG in a focused session before the Nov. 13 meeting. Staff agreed to arrange additional meetings and to bring back the item for a recommendation.
The Parks and Recreation Board took no formal vote at the Oct. 23 special session; the matter will return for action on the board’s November meeting agenda.
