Parks board rejects baseball association’s contract edits, agrees to move capital-improvement deadline to Nov. 1

The Pittsboro Parks Board on Tuesday rejected several revisions proposed by a local baseball association to a draft license and lease agreement, saying the association’s redlined language altered headings and obligations in ways that could increase the town’s liability.

At the meeting the board voted to keep its original wording for Section 2, paragraph 2 — retaining the board’s lease-fee approach rather than the association’s proposed language — and to reject a newly inserted Section B that would have required broad drainage and water-remediation obligations of the licensor. Speaker 4 moved to reject the edits and speaker 3 seconded the motion; the board voted in favor of not accepting those changes.

Why it matters: the rejected language would have shifted how capital improvements and routine maintenance are described in the agreement and could have exposed the town to responsibilities that board members said require major infrastructure work and legal clarity.

Board members repeatedly pressed for legal review. Several said the association’s redlined copy appeared to be written by counsel and that it changed headings and legal terms in ways that were confusing. “There’s nothing in there that I agree with,” one member said of the proposed drainage phrasing, calling it too broad and potentially costly for the town.

The board did accept one change the association sought: the deadline for providing documentation of annual capital improvements in lieu of a lease payment was moved from Sept. 1 to Nov. 1. Under the arrangement discussed at the meeting, the association will commit to a $10,000 annual capital-improvement contribution instead of a cash lease; it must submit documentation of proposed projects and actual costs with its request. The board said the association must provide cost documentation with proposals so the town can account for the expenditures before the end of the fiscal year.

Next steps: staff were directed to contact the association and to return a contract that follows the board’s original copy with only the date change. The board further directed that the revised contract be reviewed by the town attorney before any final signatures, and that the association may resubmit suggested language for further negotiation.

Board notes: members said water remediation requires technical definition and likely town public-works involvement — “you can’t just go in there and start digging,” one member said — and asked staff to coordinate with the town attorney and the appropriate town departments before accepting any additional obligations.