Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stadium Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses Community Park stadium work and signs LOI to pursue American Legion site
Summary
Council voted to pause activity on the Community Park baseball stadium project and authorized pursuing a non‑binding letter of intent (LOI) with the American Legion for Legion Field (alternate, southern site), including negotiating a long‑term lease; the LOI describes a proposed 81‑year lease framework, $24,000 annual base rent and a $140,000 buyout to clear existing user agreements.
The Town of Smithfield council voted to pause activity on the Community Park baseball stadium effort and to validate and pursue a non‑binding letter of intent (LOI) with the American Legion to site a ballpark at the Legion Field property.
Councilman Scott made the motion to pause work at Community Park, validate the signed LOI and begin the process of negotiating a long‑term lease with the American Legion; the motion passed on a voice vote. Council discussed the LOI terms at length before the vote and the clerk read the document into the record.
The LOI, dated April 7, describes principal, non‑binding deal points: an anticipated long‑term lease term of 81 years commencing May 1, 2026; annual base rent shown at $24,000 per year (subject to CPI adjustments); and a one‑time buyout payment of $140,000 intended to terminate existing third‑party agreements that currently use portions of the ball fields and adjacent parking. The LOI also describes exclusive negotiation rights while the LOI is in effect, a 45‑day target for negotiating a formal lease, and standard conditions such as satisfactory title, survey, attorney review and council authorization.
Ernie/Ernest (American Legion representative) explained the site boundaries and that certain Legion building areas and immediate parking would remain excluded from the town lease; the LOI allows the town to develop and operate a stadium, parking and related concessions subject to town ordinances and permitting.
Council members raised procedural and practical questions: when the $140,000 buyout would be paid (discussed as either upfront or scheduled), how existing third‑party agreements would be handled, and whether the LOI’s non‑binding wording leaves parties exposed. One participant, who said existing users were acting on the expectation of the LOI, urged the council to honor the buyout timing because those users planned to vacate facilities based on the LOI terms.
The council did not provide a roll‑call tally in the transcript; the motion to pause activity and pursue the LOI passed on a voice vote. The LOI itself specifies that it is non‑binding except for an exclusivity clause and parties’ obligation to bear their own costs; final lease rights require a future formal long‑term lease authorized by council and compliance with North Carolina law and the Local Government Fiscal Control Act.
Next steps in the transcript included staff validation of the LOI terms, continued negotiation of a long‑term lease, and direction to return to council for formal approvals and any budgetary steps.
