Subcommittee reviews feasibility study: turf replacement eyed for 2030; track runways recommended for 2026
Loading...
Summary
Staff presented a TRAC Turf feasibility study showing a planning estimate of roughly $687,000 for turf replacement around 2030 and recommended runway resurfacing as soon as 2026, with full track resurfacing around 2027; the committee asked for prioritization, lifecycle cost comparisons and injury research.
At the March 31 athletic subcommittee meeting, district staff reviewed a facilities feasibility study completed by TRAC Turf and Corp that examined turf replacement, track resurfacing and other field improvements. Mr. Anderson summarized lifecycle timing and cost estimates and highlighted drainage and wear issues in throwing areas and some runways.
The study showed the district is in the seventh season of its current turf; TRAC recommended planning for turf replacement around 2030 with a planning cost projection of about $687,000. Staff also said the firm recommended addressing some worn runways—particularly the javelin runway—as soon as 2026 and total track resurfacing around 2027. "We're in our seventh season of turf use," Mr. Anderson said, adding that the typical turf lifespan is 10 to 12 years and that TRAC recommended planning for replacement in 2030.
Committee members pressed for more analysis on athlete health and surfaces after one member raised concerns that knee and ligament injuries sometimes appear more often on turf than grass. Mr. Anderson said he would research available studies and noted he had not seen local high schools removing turf in favor of grass. Members also asked for comparative maintenance-cost data (turf vs. grass), a short list of prioritized capital projects, and clarification of timing so the district can align track and turf projects in the capital plan.
On drainage, staff reported a recurring water problem in throwing areas and recommended drainage work and an additional shot-put circle to increase participation and practice opportunities. The subcommittee discussed phasing options and the viability of a second turf field at a later date, with staff advising planning and pacing to spread large capital expenditures over several years.
No final decisions were made. The committee asked staff to return with a prioritized list of recommended projects (short-, medium- and long-term), lifecycle-cost comparisons and any available injury/sports-medical guidance to inform surface choices before the board considers funding.
