For months, families at Crocker/Riverside Elementary have been told the same story: the grass field couldn’t be saved. It was beyond repair. Artificial turf was the only realistic option.
That story isn’t true. And the person who told us it isn’t true is the SCUSD Assistant Superintendent of Facilities himself.
On March 24, 2026, in a written response to a parent’s emailed concerns, Chris Ralston wrote a single sentence that changes everything:
“It is not a cost issue, we offered to fix it. The school declined.”
Read that again. The district offered to fix the grass field. Cost was not the obstacle. Maintenance was not the obstacle. The grass was viable.
So what happened?
The timeline tells the story
In October 2025, a meeting was held in the principal’s office with district facilities staff and PTO leadership. The Assistant Superintendent has described this meeting as the moment the project was “hatched.” But PTO President Chloe Quail Schmidt has confirmed in writing that the October meeting concerned shade structures only — not turf, not grass, not field replacement of any kind.
By December 2, 2025, the district was internally circulating schematic designs that already specified artificial turf. By January 12, 2026, the PTO board received those plans for the first time — the day before they were scheduled to be presented at the next PTO meeting. By January 30, the project was publicly posted for developer bidding. The construction contract was signed on March 5, 2026.
At no point in that timeline was the school community asked whether they wanted grass or turf.
The offer that came too late
Here is what makes the March 24 admission so significant: by the time the district “offered to fix” the grass, the turf decision had already been made internally. The schematic designs were already drawn. The infill product had already been specified. The vendor had already been selected.
The “offer” wasn’t a real choice. It was a moment in a conversation that happened after the path forward had already been chosen.
Chloe Quail Schmidt has since stated, in writing:
“There was no decision point on grass v. turf at any time during the process.”
And, on the same day:
“Certainly if I had ever been asked if I prefer turf or grass I would have said grass without hesitation. But, again, I was never asked.”
Why this matters
The district has spent months telling parents that artificial turf is the only viable option for Crocker/Riverside. Its own facilities administrator has now told us, in writing, that this is not true.
Grass was viable. The district offered to fix it. The community was never given the choice.
The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education can still direct staff to revise this project’s scope — to keep the playground improvements and the hard court upgrades families support, and to install natural grass with proper drainage and irrigation in place of artificial turf. The Board has the authority. The funding is already allocated. Construction has not yet begun.
What’s missing is one thing: a Board willing to ask why a viable option was never put to the community.
Your email to the Board is what makes them ask.