Parks & Recreation Board tables artificial‑turf feasibility study, sends packet to Environmental Sustainability Board

The Los Alamos County Parks & Recreation Board voted unanimously to table an artificial‑turf feasibility study and asked staff to send the full study packet to the Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) for review before the report is forwarded to County Council.

Anya Pastushowska, project manager for NV5, presented the study and told the board the scope focused on North Mesa and Overlook parks and included public engagement (two surveys and focused interviews with Los Alamos Public Schools and youth soccer). "We are here to request your recommendation to present this report to the County Council," Pastushowska said during her opening remarks.

The study presents a framework of phased improvements and a menu of options — from essential ADA and safety upgrades to long‑term synthetic‑turf installations — and included cost estimating by phase. Pastushowska and team described environmental and human‑health concerns captured during public engagement and recommended choosing higher‑quality, recyclable synthetic products if the community pursues turf to reduce long‑term waste impact.

Board members asked detailed questions on the record. Engineer Todd Smith confirmed that the study’s natural‑field estimates include irrigation and drainage infrastructure. Consultants said phase costs were defined by dollar thresholds (roughly up to $5 million per phase in the study’s phasing logic) and that estimates assume construction starting in 2028 to allow for design time.

Several residents urged caution. "The trash alone from the 7 years that this will have to be renewed in is something we can't even handle," said a speaker who identified herself as Dina, citing landfill and health concerns and urging further evaluation. Lisa Reeder, speaking for equestrian users, said the study title and outreach misled some groups and asked for better engagement on trails and bridle‑path needs. Shannon Blair, chair of the Environmental Sustainability Board, asked that ESB be given the packet and time to review the environmental assessments and return recommendations to the board and council.

Board members considered two options: forward the report to County Council now or pause and seek ESB review. A member moved to table the recommendation and have staff provide the full information packet to ESB; another member seconded. On roll call the motion passed unanimously. Staff was asked to confirm ESB availability (ESB reported a likely slot at its next scheduled meeting) and to deliver the study packet and appendices promptly.

The board emphasized that the study is a feasibility/framework document — not a final master plan — and that tabling preserves council‑level options while allowing ESB and other stakeholders to review environmental, lifecycle and cost‑of‑ownership details. Members noted Council will likely ask for lifecycle cost comparisons and clarified the community interest data (use hours and seasonal constraints) will be important for any final decision.

Next steps: Staff will send the full study packet and appendices to the Environmental Sustainability Board for review and schedule a return to the Parks & Recreation Board before any recommendation is forwarded to County Council.