Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Turf Projects topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

District narrows turf options, warns installations could extend through summer

Nashville School District Board of Education · January 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Superintendent Graham briefed the board on bids from several turf vendors and said installations are likely months‑long projects that may need sequencing and budget prioritization; the board did not approve a contract but said it may hold a special meeting for final decisions.

The Nashville School District board heard a progress report on turf‑field replacement options on Jan. 20 but took no final contract action.

Superintendent Graham told trustees that the district has received interest and pricing from multiple vendors — including Hellas, Symmetry, Sprint Turf and Geo Services — and that the district planned site visits and follow‑up bids. He said companies are preparing proposals for the outdoor game field, an indoor dome field and the track, and that the district may have to prioritize projects because it may not be able to afford all three at once.

“It’s going to be basically an all‑summer job to go in and tear it out,” Graham said, describing the work vendors outlined: removal of existing surfacing, laser leveling of the base and a multi‑week install window. He warned the board the track should be scheduled last to allow equipment access and to avoid interfering with spring sports.

A vendor representative estimated a typical install could take “three or four months,” and board members asked about warranties and nearby fields the district could visit as samples. Graham noted warranty differences (most products carry eight‑year warranties; a particular pivot system referenced by vendors included a 12‑year guarantee) and said staff would continue site visits to compare turf options and pricing.

The board did not vote on a contractor at the meeting; Graham said staff aim to narrow choices and could call a special meeting before February if a final recommendation is ready. He asked the board for direction on prioritization and said he would update trustees as vendor proposals firmed up.