Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables nonbinding term sheet for FC Cincinnati mini pitch over maintenance cost concerns
Summary
City staff and FC Cincinnati proposed a nonbinding term sheet to place a mini soccer pitch at Riverside 2. The city manager and several council members said the proposed long-term maintenance responsibility after the first warranty year was unclear; council agreed to table the item for further negotiation.
The Milford City Council discussed a nonbinding term sheet with FC Cincinnati and a construction contractor to install a small, synthetic “mini pitch” at Riverside 2 but tabled the proposal after staff said maintenance and long-term cost responsibilities were not adequately defined.
City Manager (name not specified) summarized the term sheet presented to staff: FC Cincinnati Foundation would cover construction and the first year of major repairs, while the city would assume ongoing maintenance and potential major repair costs after the end of a one-year warranty. Staff said typical useful life for such installations is commonly six to 10 years and that warranties on equipment and surface materials run one year.
The city manager said he and others had a different initial understanding of who would bear costs after the warranty and recommended tabling the item so staff and FC Cincinnati could revise the MOU to set clearer maintenance responsibilities and limits on the city’s financial exposure.
Several council members supported tabling. Council Member Thompson said he had been “sold” on the project under the impression it would be fully supported by the foundation. Council Member Price and others voiced concern that the nonbinding term sheet as written could create an unbudgeted $180,000 asset or higher future maintenance liability for the city if the useful life and cost-sharing were not clarified.
Council directed staff to continue negotiations with FC Cincinnati and return with an MOU that better matches the parties’ shared understanding; the item was placed on the council calendar for reconsideration at a future meeting (staff referenced bringing a revised MOU back at the July 15 meeting if an agreement could be reached). No binding contract or final approval was made at the June meeting.
