Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Fields Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anthem council reviews field usage, maintenance and costly reconstruction options
Summary
Council staff presented five‑year usage and revenue data for Anthem’s sports fields and outlined short‑ and long‑term maintenance and capital options — from soil amendments to full synthetic‑turf replacement costing more than $1.7 million — and recommended routing major projects through the FMP process.
Anthem Community Council staff presented a multi‑year analysis of field usage, current maintenance practices and a range of capital‑improvement options, and they advised the board to consider any major reconstruction through the Facility Master Plan (FMP) process.
Staff summarized five years of bookings and revenue and described a recent shift: while total bookings have declined from pandemic peaks, revenue per booking and revenue per hour have increased as fees were adjusted. Over the past five years staff reported nearly 14,000 bookings and more than $1.3 million in revenue; for 2025 staff cited revenue of roughly $283,000 and an average revenue per hour of about $28.62.
Maintenance practices explained to the board emphasize long‑term field health: staff said the ACC does not overseed sports fields so Bermuda grass can establish a healthy root mat, uses twice‑annual soil testing, targeted fertilization, aeration and rotational field layout to spread wear. Dust and dormant‑period thinning were noted as tradeoffs during the hottest months.
Capital options ranged from incremental measures (topsoil additions; estimated $175,000–$870,000 depending on findings) to sand capping and improved drainage, up to a synthetic turf reconstruction estimated in the transcript at roughly $1.75 million to as much as $3 million depending on scope and materials. Staff warned that reconstruction work would reduce rentable field hours during installation and recommended the board include major work in the FMP submission rather than the operating budget.
Board members sought clarifications — which fields were included (main park fields 1–4, not Opportunity Way), how usage and lighting/parking affect demand, and the financial tradeoffs during multi‑season construction. Several members recommended forming a citizens/staff review group and adding any large reconstruction projects to the FMP for formal consideration.
