Residents protest county lease of bowling alley to lifetime-registered offender; county attorney says lease and ownership are legal

Several parents and residents told the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors on Monday they oppose leasing a county-owned bowling alley to a man identified in public comment as a lifetime-registered level 3 offender. Benjamin Ehart, a resident, said the purchase "puts kids at risk" because families and children use the facility.

Erica Schaefer told the board she will not bring her children to the bowling alley and urged officials to reconsider the arrangement. "I don't think just like Ben just said that this is not good," she said, adding that typical restrictions on registrants commonly bar proximity to pools, schools or bus stops.

Other speakers, including Chris Bade, pressed the board on procurement and transparency, saying the county first declined all offers to lease or sell the property in an RFP and later negotiated with an unnamed buyer without a public hearing. "You declined all the offers that came in from the RFP... then 2 months later, not even an item on the agenda, you said, hey, Steve, you can negotiate and sign a contract with an unnamed person," Bade said, and asked the county attorney to review whether that process complied with procurement rules.

The county attorney told the board that Virginia law permits a registered offender to lease or own real property and that the county's authority is limited to the real-estate transaction itself. "A registered [sex] offender can lease real property and own real property," the attorney said, and noted that any restrictions would depend on statutory proximity rules or specific conditions on the offender's supervision. The attorney also said breaking an executed lease could expose the county to legal claims and would require legal research.

During public comment the man identified in board records as Tony Ingram addressed the board and disputed the allegations that led to his convictions, saying he had passed a polygraph and contesting aspects of the prosecutions. Audience members and several supervisors interrupted; the chair called a recess to restore order.

Board members said they did not know the buyer's background before the transaction was negotiated and pledged to look into the procurement record and legal options. Several supervisors said they understand parents' concerns but also noted that the individual's rights and the county's contractual obligations intersect and that any remedy should be grounded in law.

The board did not take a formal vote on the lease during the meeting. Staff and legal counsel were asked to review the procurement process and to report back to the board with possible options, including whether the transaction complied with advertised RFP terms or whether the county retains remedies under the lease or sale documents.