Current Status
Click here to find out how to take action now
Community meeting: Awaiting scheduling
During the July 27 site visit, CMS stated that it intends to hold a future evening community meeting. This was reiterated via e-mail by CMS on July 28. As of this last update, no meeting date had been announced. To maximize community participation, residents have requested an evening community meeting be scheduled Tuesday-Th at 7pm. Residents also request that before selecting a date for any future community meeting, CMS coordinate with the two resident points of contact, to identify a date that would maximize neighborhood participation.
Public Records Request #26-412: Open
Public Records Request #26-413: Open
Public Records Request #26-570: Open
Residents had not received responsive records addressing the project's site selection or other requested planning information.
Residents have also submitted follow-up questions requesting additional information regarding the project approval process, supporting analyses, site selection, and future opportunities for community engagement.
TIMELINE
The timeline below documents publicly available project milestones, resident communications, CMS correspondence, DYSA communications, and public records activity related to the proposed Pinewood athletic field project. It is intended to provide a chronological record of documented events and residents' efforts to obtain information, understand the project approval process, and participate in community engagement. The timeline will be updated as additional information becomes available.
To protect resident privacy, individual residents are identified throughout this timeline as Household A, Household B, and Household C.
2010
Madison Central Park was established through a city-supported grant initiative intended to preserve and enhance neighborhood recreational space. The project involved planning, public engagement, engineering, grading, zoning approvals, and coordination among multiple public agencies before the park was developed. Documents available here.
Additionally, on November 1, 2010 meeting notes were recorded by Lisa Charde regarding the creation of Madison Central Park. Comments from Todd Sherrill, the CMS Site Manager are summarized in the document. Highlighted in red Todd’s comments for mitigating the impact on the neighborhood. Click here for meeting notes.
January 5, 2025
Chris Pineno, President of Dilworth Youth Sports Association (DYSA), signed the application for the proposed Extended Use Agreement. (See page 9 of the executed agreement).
February 1, 2026
The Extended Use Agreement was fully executed.
The agreement includes signatures from:
Chris Pineno, President, Dilworth Youth Sports Association (DYSA)
Chris Frye, Partner, Barringer Construction (DYSA)
Shawn Renykhart, Division of Insurance & Risk Management, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Nicole Portee, Associate Superintendent of Operations, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Tim Ivey, Chief Operating Officer, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Dr. Crystal Hill, Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Natashia Pegram, Principal, Pinewood Elementary School
During a review of publicly available Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education meeting agendas, minutes, and supporting materials, residents did not identify a public Board vote specifically authorizing execution of the Extended Use Agreement. This prompted subsequent questions regarding the approval process and the Board's role in approving the agreement.
Early May 2026
Survey stakes appeared at Madison Central Park adjacent to Pinewood Elementary School, alerting nearby residents that activity was occurring on the property.
Household A contacted CMS Operations seeking information about the survey work. Mr. Ivey advised that there was a project involving 1 baseball field on the left side of the property.
Shortly after that conversation, the survey stakes were removed.
Mid-May 2026
Household B contacted Mr. Ivey and Ms. Pegram after learning of the survey activity. No response was received from either party.
CMS Board Member Cynthia Stone responded to Household B stating that she had not previously been aware of the proposal and initially believed Mecklenburg County was involved before learning it was a CMS project.
Through a North Carolina Public Records Act request, residents obtained a copy of the executed Extended Use Agreement. The agreement detailed up to three baseball fields, batting cages, and associated infrastructure, rather than the single baseball field previously described to Household A by Mr. Ivey.
After reviewing the agreement, Household C submitted follow-up questions regarding the approval process, including whether a project involving permanent athletic construction had been presented to the elected Board of Education and through what process the agreement had been approved.
During subsequent communications, residents were advised that no signed or executed agreement existed. Residents responded by providing the fully executed agreement previously released by CMS through the public records request and requested clarification.
Late May/ Early June 2026
Household A, who had previously spoken with Mr. Ivey regarding the survey activity, contacted him again after learning of the executed agreement. Mr. Ivey stated that he would look into the matter. No additional information was provided over the following two months.
Ms. Stone asked Ms. Portee to contact Household C regarding their communication in mid-May. During a telephone conversation, Ms. Portee indicated that CMS would work toward arranging a meeting with project architects and this household. Household C subsequently followed up by email and telephone on three separate occasions over the following two months but did not receive a response from Ms. Portee.
June 6, 2026
Residents submitted two public records requests to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools under the North Carolina Public Records Act.
Request #26-412 seeks records relating to the selection of Pinewood, alternative sites considered, traffic and neighborhood analyses, community engagement, internal communications, planning documents, and drafts of the Extended Use Agreement.
CMS advised that locating responsive records could require reviewing approximately 12,500 emails (approximately 39 GB of data) and estimated more than 250 hours of staff time amounting to $11k. CMS offered an opportunity to reduce scope. On June 8, residents subsequently narrowed and clarified the request to reduce its scope while preserving the core questions regarding site selection and project planning. The request remains open.
Request #26-413 seeks records identifying comparable athletic partnership agreements entered into by CMS since 2015 to better understand how similar projects have been approved and structured.
CMS responded by providing a link to the CMS Bond Construction website noting partial fulfillment. Residents did not identify responsive information addressing the request. Residents continue to seek records responsive to the request. The request remains open.
June 24, 2026
Mr. Pineno advised Household B that he was working with CMS to identify dates for a 7 p.m. community meeting, with July 13 or July 14 discussed as potential options.
July 8, 2026
Household B sent a follow-up email to DYSA and CMS requesting an update regarding the proposed community meeting and asking whether dates had been confirmed. No response was received.
Mid-July 2026
Household A followed up with Mr. Ivey regarding the project after not receiving additional information.
July 15, 2026
At 1:17 p.m., LaKeisha McMoore, Senior Administrative Assistant to Mr. Tim Ivey and Ms. Nicole Portee, emailed Household A, Mr. Pineno, and members of CMS Facilities inviting recipients to attend an on-site community meeting at Pinewood Elementary School scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on a weekday. Neither Household B, nor Household C were on the invitation.
Household A notified Household B.
At 1:45 p.m., Household B called Ms. McMoore expressing concern that a weekday morning meeting would prevent many working residents from attending. Household B also advised that approximately 50 households had expressed questions or concerns regarding the project.
Ms. McMoore stated that she had a meeting with Ms. Portee that afternoon and said either she or Ms. Portee would respond by the end of the day.
No response was received.
July 16, 2026
After not receiving a follow-up, Household B again called Ms. McMoore. Ms. McMoore advised that she had not spoken with Ms. Portee the previous afternoon and that Ms. Portee was on vacation until July 27th. She stated that the meeting would remain scheduled as planned.
Household B requested that CMS either:
Reschedule the meeting for an evening when working residents could attend, or
Cancel the scheduled meeting and arrange a new date after Ms. Portee returned.
Ms. McMoore advised that she was not authorized to reschedule the meeting.
Household B then asked whether Mr. Ivey could authorize or coordinate a new meeting in Ms. Portee’s absence. Ms. McMoore explained that Mr. Ivey had asked Ms. Portee to handle the meeting planning and therefore would not make any scheduling changes in her absence. Ms. McMoore suggested that Household B contact Mr. Ivey directly.
Household B explained that Mr. Ivey had not been responsive to date and requested that the scheduling concerns instead be escalated internally. Ms. McMoore stated that she would reach out to Mr. Ivey.
Another individual replied to Ms. McMoore’s meeting invitation email, copying Ms. Portee, Mr. Ivey, Mr. Pineno, and other CMS staff. The email reiterated that a weekday meeting at 8:30 a.m. would prevent many working residents from attending and respectfully requested that the meeting be rescheduled.
As of July 26th, no response had been received to either the individual's email or Household B’s request.
Household A, Household B and Household C, intended to attend the scheduled 8:30 a.m. meeting in order to, again, respectfully request that CMS schedule a separate evening community meeting so that working residents and other interested community members have a meaningful opportunity to participate.
July 24, 2026 – Residents Request CMS Board Review
Residents submitted a formal request to CMS Board Chair Stephanie Sneed and District 5 Board Member Cynthia Stone requesting Board review of the proposed Madison Central Park/Pinewood athletic field project.
The correspondence summarized residents' concerns regarding the project's approval process, site selection, anticipated community benefit, project planning, and prior public engagement. Residents also provided a timeline of events and supporting project information. Residents requested the project be paused until relevant records could be provided and concerns addressed.
July 24, 2026 – Board Member Cynthia Stone Responds
Board Member Cynthia Stone responded that she had first become aware of the proposed project earlier in the spring and explained that efforts to arrange community discussions were already underway. She indicated residents would have two opportunities to participate and forwarded the correspondence to CMS staff involved with the project.
Residents later provided additional background regarding survey activity observed at the property, conflicting information residents had received regarding the project's scope, and requested that the designated neighborhood points of contact be included in future project communications. This website was also shared.
July 26, 2026 – Board Chair Stephanie Sneed Responds
Board Chair Stephanie Sneed thanked residents for providing a comprehensive overview of the project and stated that she would work to better understand the decision-making process. She also noted that, based on her initial understanding, the matter appeared to be an administrative action rather than one requiring Board approval.
July 26, 2026 (1:27 PM) – Residents Distribute Proposed Meeting Agenda
The day before the scheduled site visit, residents distributed a proposed agenda outlining the topics they hoped to discuss, including:
Scheduling Community Meetings, Project status and approval process, Community benefit, Site selection, Project planning, Public records, Requested next steps
The agenda also explained that residents did not consider the July 27 gathering to satisfy the broader community engagement process they had requested because it had not been presented as a community meeting or coordinated through the neighborhood points of contact. Instead, residents proposed using the meeting to clarify the project's status, identify outstanding information, and establish expectations for future public engagement.
Residents also requested two evening community meetings, coordination with the designated resident points of contact, discussion of outstanding public records requests, and the analyses and documents supporting the proposed site selection.
July 26, 2026 (8:03 PM) – CMS Clarifies the Purpose of the July 27 Site Visit
Later that evening, CMS Associate Superintendent Nicole Portee responded that the July 27 gathering would serve as a site visit where CMS staff and residents could walk the property, discuss the proposed project, and hear residents' concerns directly.
Ms. Portee also advised that CMS intended to schedule a future community meeting to provide additional planning information, discuss potential timelines, and continue the conversation with the broader neighborhood.
July 27, 2026 – CMS Conducts Site Visit at Pinewood Elementary
Approximately six neighborhood households met with CMS, DYSA, and Board Member Cynthia Stone for an on-site discussion regarding the proposed project. Topics included the approval process, community engagement, site selection, traffic, safety, and neighborhood impacts.
Read the complete Site Visit Record here
July 28, 2026 – CMS Distributes Written Meeting Summary
Ms. Portee distributed a written summary of the July 27 site visit describing the discussion, noting that no decisions or agreements were reached during the meeting and stating that no plans had been approved at that time.
The email also reiterated CMS's commitment to schedule an evening community meeting, provide additional planning information, and continue discussions with residents.
July 31, 2026 – Household B Meets with President of DYSA
In summary, the objective information necessary to demonstrate that this particular project, at this particular scale, at this particular location, provides a net benefit to Pinewood Elementary and Madison Park has not yet been provided.
Household B explained to Chris that, based on the reasons he had provided throughout our discussion and site visit, they continued to hear an articulation of DYSA’s need for additional and more reliable field capacity rather than evidence of a need originating from Pinewood Elementary or Madison Park. The resident told him that, from their perspective, it appeared that DYSA had identified available CMS green space as a potential solution to its broader field-capacity problem and was then seeking to establish the community benefit of locating the project there. The analysis should work in the opposite direction: first establish a demonstrated need within the immediate community, then determine what type and scale of project, if any, appropriately addresses that need.
August 3, 2026 – Article published in Charlotte Ledger written by daughter of a DYSA Commissioner
https://www.thecharlotteledger.com/p/charlotte-youth-sports-outgrow-existing-fields
The article describes a much broader vision, including Madison Central Park becoming a DYSA HUB with additional infrastructure such as concessions and an equipment building. This is far beyond even their original contract of three fields and batting cages.
The article also explains that DYSA is pursuing this project because it has run out of field space and is seeking a long-term home rather than continuing to share fields elsewhere.
The article states that DYSA has been engaging with the community. The timeline tells a different story. It took months of neighborhood outreach before we were given a seat at the table and now there is a lack of transparency.
August 9, 2026 – Household B sends e-mail to CMS and DYSA
The e-mail documents Household B’s July 31 meeting with DYSA President Chris Pineno and formally outlines the information and review requested before further action, including demonstrated community need, potential impacts, site suitability, alternatives, CMS’s approval process, and outstanding public records. It also requests that residents receive the relevant information before a meaningful community meeting, to be scheduled for September 8 or later.
Last Updated August 9, 2026
Please click below to directly sign up for updates. ↓