Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wilmington Sharks Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs staff recommendation for five‑year Wilmington Sharks renewal; owner’s operational control requests denied
Summary
City staff recommended, and the commission recommended by voice vote, a five‑year renewal for the Wilmington Sharks' lease with modest per‑game fee increases and preservation of the interlocal shared‑use agreement; the team had sought exclusive control, parking control and right of first refusal, which staff declined to recommend.
The commission considered a recommended renewal of the Wilmington Sharks' contract and staff presented the principal terms: a five‑year agreement with two one‑year options, per‑game fees rising from $685 (next two years) to $700 in 2028 and $715 thereafter, and retention of the $1 per‑ticket maintenance charge that is restricted to Buck Hardy Field maintenance (the fund holds about $22,000). Amy, the presenting staff member, said the city is recommending terms similar to the prior contract and asked the commission for a recommendation to city management.
Amy reported the Sharks' new owner requested broader operational control, exclusive use of the facility, control of the shared parking lot and a right of first refusal on adjacent development. "They would like more control of the stadium," Amy said, but she added that the city's existing interlocal agreement gives New Hanover High School priority use (up to 70 percent) and that staff is not recommending changes to that agreement. The staff position was that exclusive control or amended parking/land‑use rights would require amending the interlocal agreement adopted by the city, county and schools.
Commissioners asked for attendance and capacity data; staff said the Sharks play roughly 30 games per season and that attendance generally exceeds half of capacity for most games, but specific ticket totals and exact field capacity were not available during the meeting and were offered as follow‑up. The commission discussed concessions, booster club concerns and how shared use has produced recurring tensions when ownership or coaching changes create new expectations.
A motion to accept staff's recommended contract renewal was moved and seconded; the board conducted a voice vote with no recorded opposition and the chair stated the contract had been approved. After the vote a commissioner questioned whether a quorum was present, creating ambiguity in the meeting record: the minutes show a motion, a second and a voice vote in favor, but no roll‑call tally was recorded and a commissioner later remarked that attendance appeared insufficient for a formal vote. The chair and staff proceeded to move to old business after the vote.
Staff framed the action as a recommendation to city management (not an executed long‑term contract at this meeting) and said the recommended terms will be forwarded for final approval through appropriate management and partner bodies. The commission also asked staff to continue stakeholder outreach and to provide follow‑up data on attendance, capacity and the fund balance for Buck Hardy Field.
