Richland County School board hears GeoSurfaces plan for athletic complex; public urges caution and timelines

Richland County School officials and residents spent more than three hours on the district’s proposed athletic complex as the board heard a contractor presentation and dozens of public comments on the project. The board did not vote to award a contract; members agreed to schedule facility tours and consider a special meeting to decide whether to move forward. The presentation was given by James Beaver, director of special projects, and other representatives of Tincada/GeoSurfaces, which described turf, drainage, lighting, track and warranty options and answered technical and schedule questions.

The project drew sharply divided public commentary. Several parents, alumni and former members of the district’s 2017 facilities committee said the athletic complex is the final element of promises made when the district’s 1% sales tax was approved. “The vision outlined years ago was a comprehensive plan,” said Sherry Gray, identifying herself as a member of the original 2017 FACTS committee and a district teacher. “To stop short of completing that vision undermines both the intent of the FACTS initiative and the trust of the community that voted to support it.”

Other residents raised fiscal and procedural concerns, including timing, bidding and long-term debt. “We need to slow down so that we don’t waste taxpayer dollars,” said Caleb Piercefield, who questioned the board’s bidding process and asked why staged or lower-cost alternatives had not been explored. Jason Dorris, another resident, told the board the lack of a confirmed plan and timeline increases liability exposure and undermines public confidence: “Getting a confirmed plan in place with steps moving forward in timelines does a lot to combat that liability exposure.”

Why it matters: The athletic fields are heavily used by students and community groups, and the district is considering a major capital investment funded in part by the local 1% sales tax and potentially by a bond. A decision will affect schedules for fall sports, local vendors and district finances; residents raised concerns about tax impacts, debt service and whether the sales tax alone will cover bond payments.

What GeoSurfaces presented: Company representatives said they conducted a drone survey and prepared a site layout addressing sun angles, stormwater detention and equipment placement. The firm described three turf options (traditional sand/rubber infill, “iron turf” and a newer infill-free product branded Pivot), and recommended shock pads to preserve consistent safety performance and extend warranty life. “We are the manufacturer, so we are the ones that will handle everything in-house construction and post-construction,” James Beaver said, describing warranty, maintenance and annual field testing plans.

Contractor timeline and warranty: GeoSurfaces proposed a 12–13 month construction schedule from pre-construction through turnover, with the company offering integrated warranties on turf, track and LED lighting (the firm described a 12-year manufacturing warranty for Pivot and a 25-year maintenance-free warranty for its lighting). GeoSurfaces staff said they would provide annual G-max field testing and training for district maintenance staff.

Safety, playability and drainage: A physician who serves as a team doctor and other commenters urged the board to evaluate injury risk for turf versus grass and to plan medical access routes. Company engineers explained the proposed subsurface — a stabilized subgrade, nonwoven geotextile, roughly six inches of washed aggregate and perimeter drainage — and said properly designed systems can route water to detention and drain the field quickly. The contractor noted that the playing surface itself is designed to allow water to pass through its perforations and reach the drainage layers beneath.

Board response and next steps: Board President Jason Fox summarized options and logistics for careful vetting. The superintendent said he could take two board members at a time on site visits to recent installations and suggested a decision be deferred while members study references and visit comparable fields. “We can hit several schools and come back the next week and make a decision,” Fox said; the board tentatively agreed to plan tours and to consider holding a special meeting the week of Sept. 30–Oct. 1 (date to be set) to decide whether to proceed. No contract award or formal vote on the complex occurred at this meeting.

Costs, public finance and debt concerns raised in public comment: Residents pressed the board for detailed, long-term comparisons of bond scenarios, interest costs, and how the district’s existing 2018 bond debt intersects with any new borrowing. One commenter asserted particular interest-rate and interest-total figures for prior bonds and forecasts for new bonds and urged postponement until rates fall; the board made no financial commitments at the meeting.

What remains open: The board did not adopt any resolution or sign a contract. It asked staff to organize visits to comparable installations, provide more detailed stormwater and schedule engineering, and return with refined cost and financing scenarios for a future vote. The board also requested references and access to installed Pivot fields and other local installations so members, coaches and maintenance staff could evaluate the playability and upkeep firsthand.