Ohio County Fiscal Court approves loan application to help open Ability Center training facility

The Ohio County Fiscal Court on Jan. 18 approved an application for a county loan to support renovations and startup of the Ability Center, a proposed day-training facility for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Court consideration came after Christine Carpenter, who presented the application to the court, said the center has strong community interest and has already begun interior renovations. Carpenter told the court the project would create roughly 13 jobs — two managerial positions and about 10 on‑site staff — and that organizers expect to enroll at least 10 participants in the first six months and about 20 within a year.

“This is just their initial application. This is us working through the steps,” Carpenter said while describing the loan paperwork and security details discussed with the bank. She said the loan would be secured by a second mortgage on the property and that staff were still completing the application file.

Jason (court member) moved to approve the application process for a $100,000 county loan to the Ability Center; a second was recorded for discussion. Court members discussed customary closing timing and a typical 15‑year term for property‑secured loans. Carpenter said renovation work was already under way and that applicants planned to begin operations once closing and outstanding items were completed.

In a roll-call vote, the court recorded five votes in favor and one opposed: Johnson (yes), Goodman (yes), Morfield (no), McKinney (yes), Bullock (yes) and Bennett (yes). The motion passed.

Court members asked the applicants to notify the court when the loan closes and when the center opens. Carpenter and members agreed the court would receive updates on the project’s closing and opening dates.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting included the lenders named during discussion (references to People’s Bank and Morgantown Bank), that the loan would be secured by a second mortgage, and that the applicants had begun interior renovations; exact closing date and final equipment/furnishing dollar amounts were not specified during the meeting.

The court’s approval was limited to advancing the application process; the motion did not set final loan terms or disbursement mechanics in public minutes. Court members noted that, per past practice, some county loans are paid directly to vendors, and requested the county follow its usual vendor‑payment procedures if approved loan terms require it.