Sioux City — The Sioux City Community School District Board of Directors discussed a proposal from Morningside University to install synthetic infield turf at East High School and declined to set a public hearing after several board members said available cost estimates differed widely and contract details were incomplete.

Tim Paul, a district staff member presenting the item, said Morningside approached the district seeking use of East High’s baseball field because other local venues are no longer available for the college’s program. Paul said Morningside would fund infield turf installation and must show proof of funding; staff estimated that Morningside’s contribution could range between $400,000 and $550,000 for the turf installation and that the work would need to be completed by May 1, 2026, for use the following baseball season.

Why it matters: The district would retain ownership of field improvements, and staff told the board the district would assume responsibility for replacement and long-term maintenance after the lease. Board members expressed concern that replacement or conversion back to natural turf could impose substantial costs on the district in the future.

Key terms presented: Paul said the university would fund the installation, select a contractor (subject to district oversight), and that the district would have scheduling priority on Thursday, Friday evenings and Saturdays; the university would have secondary priority. The district’s operations and maintenance department would oversee installation and any required field prep, including removal of sprinkler lines.

Conflicting cost and lifespan estimates: Paul presented a range of lifecycle and replacement numbers drawn from vendor and comparative research. He cited typical synthetic-turf lifespans of 8–10 years, while others in the meeting with East High experience said baseball-specific turf can last 13–15 years given lower total-player usage compared with football. Paul’s slides and board discussion contained widely varying replacement estimates: in some cases staff presented high-end removal and reconversion costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; East High representatives and a district coach said they had previously restored a natural infield for amounts nearer to $10,000–$20,000 under local arrangements.

District obligations and long-term risk: Paul told the board that at the end of any lease the district would own the turf and be responsible for replacement and disposal costs; he estimated an infield-only replacement could range substantially, with staff offering both conservative high-end figures and lower local estimates. Director Grama highlighted that removal/disposal and reconversion could reach several hundred thousand dollars under some vendor estimates and asked who would pay if Morningside left after the lease.

Board reaction and request for clearer numbers: Directors repeatedly asked staff and Morningside representatives for more precise, vendor-backed estimates of installation, removal, reconversion-to-grass and ongoing maintenance costs; they also asked about insurance, liability and how maintenance responsibilities would be coordinated between district staff and Morningside. Several directors said the current packet numbers were too disparate to support scheduling a public hearing.

Motion and vote: A motion to set a public hearing for Sept. 8, 2025, to consider a lease and agreement was made and seconded. Roll-call voting on the motion produced three yes votes (Directors Myers, Emke and George) and four no votes (Directors Greenwell, Lee, Michaelson and Miller), so the motion failed.

Other facts from the discussion: Paul said the university must demonstrate proof of funding before a lease would begin and that the turf vendor would be selected in coordination with the district; the district would retain full control of scheduling and would not charge the college rent aside from the turf contribution. Morningside’s representatives said baseball was their immediate need and asked the board to consider the partnership’s history and potential community benefits.

Next steps: Board members asked staff to obtain vendor-specific cost estimates (installation, removal/disposal, insurance and replacement scenarios) and clearer written contract terms that would protect the district against excessive future costs or liabilities before reintroducing the matter for a hearing.

Ending: The board left the item without setting a public hearing after members said they needed tighter, vendor‑level financial and contractual detail to evaluate long-term fiscal consequences.