When Sacramento City Unified School District officials defend the artificial turf installation at Crocker/Riverside Elementary, they often describe a months-long process of community input. Meetings were held. Plans were shared. The PTO was involved.
Here is what the PTO President actually wrote, in an email on April 10, 2026:
“There was no decision point on grass v. turf at any time during the process.”
And, in the same message:
“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.”
The person closest to the community engagement process — the elected leader of the parent organization the district claims it consulted — has stated, in writing, that the central question was never put to her or to the community she represents.
This article walks through how that happened.
October 2025: A meeting about shade structures
The Assistant Superintendent of Facilities, Chris Ralston, has described the project as “hatched” at an October 2025 meeting in the principal’s office. PTO President Chloe Quail Schmidt has confirmed in writing that the October meeting was about shade structures only. Three additional PTO meeting attendees have separately confirmed her account in writing.
There was no discussion of artificial turf at the October meeting. There was no discussion of replacing the grass field. There was no discussion of infill products. Shade structures were the agenda.
December 2, 2025: Internal plans circulate
Two months later, the district was internally circulating schematic designs that already specified artificial turf, the FieldTurf product line, and the olive pit infill material. The plans were sent to school site staff with a three-day review window. No notification to parents. No notification to the broader PTO membership.
January 12, 2026: PTO board sees the plans for the first time — the day before they’re presented
On January 12, 2026, the PTO board received the plans. They were scheduled to be presented at the next PTO board meeting on January 13. That gave PTO leadership less than 24 hours to review schematic designs for a multi-million-dollar project before being asked to discuss them.
January 13, 2026: A meeting where the screen wasn’t working
At the January 13 PTO board meeting, the Assistant Superintendent’s computer was reportedly not working, and the plans could not be displayed on screen. Artificial turf was mentioned briefly. Quail Schmidt later confirmed in writing:
“Almost all of the questions were about TK and the discussion about the rest of the plan was at a very high level.”
Translation: the meeting that the district describes as community engagement on the field replacement did not, in any meaningful sense, engage the community on the field replacement.
January 30, 2026: The project is publicly bid out
Six days before the PTO would receive the final plans, the project was publicly posted for developer procurement. By the time PTO leadership had a chance to review what was actually being proposed, the contract was already in active bidding.
February 5, 2026: PTO receives the final plans
The full, final plans reached PTO leadership on February 5 — three months and one week after the October “hatching” meeting that, per the PTO’s own record, never discussed turf at all.
February 6, 2026: One announcement, later deleted
On February 6, the principal posted the first and only school-wide announcement about the project on Parent Square. The post described the installation as “a brand-new turf field.” It did not contain the words “artificial,” “synthetic,” “FieldTurf,” “olive pit,” or “infill.”
That post was later deleted.
For the vast majority of Crocker/Riverside families, that single deleted post was the only school-wide notice they ever received about a project that would replace their children’s grass field with a synthetic surface and crushed olive pits.
March 5, 2026: Contract signed
The construction contract was signed. The community had still not been asked.
What the district’s own Facilities Master Plan requires
The SCUSD Facilities Master Plan establishes, as Principle 1, that “the voices of students, parents, and community members inform District planning” and that this is “key to the overall success of the capital improvement program.”
The community engagement on this project did not meet that standard. The district’s own elected parent partner has said so in writing.
Why this matters
A real community engagement process would have presented the choice plainly: We can repair and irrigate the existing grass field. Or we can install artificial turf with crushed olive pit infill. Here are the costs, the safety considerations, and the tradeoffs of each. What does the community prefer?
That conversation never happened. Quail Schmidt has confirmed it never happened. The timeline confirms it never happened. The district’s own facilities administrator has confirmed in writing that grass was viable and that the district offered to fix it — an offer made after the turf decision had already been finalized internally.
The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education can still pause this project, direct staff to revise the scope, and require a real community engagement process before construction begins. The Board has the authority. The funding is allocated. Construction has not yet started.
What the Board needs is a reason to act. Your email is that reason.