Proponent asks Clarksburg council for $25,000 to study converting Village Square into opioid‑prevention community hub

Clarksburg — At a city council meeting, a presenter identified in the transcript as Lopez asked council members to approve a $25,000 application from opioid‑settlement funds to produce architectural renderings to study converting Village Square into a multiuse “Hope” center for prevention, education and recreation.

Lopez described the proposal as a study step, not a commitment to build, and framed it as a way to use settlement and grant dollars to create a hub of after‑school programs, a learning library, a music studio, lease space for daycare and urgent care, and classrooms for community organizations. “I’m simply asking for the beginning component to study what we need to look at to evaluate the viability of this project,” Lopez said. He also told council, “This is not going to be a place where people receive Suboxone... This is not a treatment facility.”

Doug, speaking for parks interests, told council parks could operate recreation programming within such a facility and emphasized keeping youth engaged: “I’m all about when I interviewed for this job... it’s all about the kids,” he said, arguing a multiuse hub could provide safe alternatives that may reduce idle time linked to substance use.

Council members and city staff raised several questions. Staff and at least one council member noted the application language asks for architectural drawings rather than a feasibility study and warned that a feasibility study or a contract for work at $25,000 would typically require city procurement steps (an RFP) rather than sole‑sourcing. Staff also said a feasibility study of this magnitude could cost more than $25,000 and expressed concern that the current application and ownership arrangements do not reflect an existing city partnership with Village Square.

Ownership and financing were discussed: council members were told Village Square is owned by Mark Wilt and the presenter said he represents Wilt; council members pressed whether Wilt had provided legal authorization for deals and asked about outstanding liens. The transcript records differing characterizations of outstanding debt on the property (one speaker said liens total about $3.2 million), and the presenter said any debt would be resolved in transfer paperwork and would not automatically encumber the city.

Legal eligibility under the West Virginia First Fund memorandum and the city’s own distribution policy was central to the debate. Several council members and staff said some elements Lopez described (education, prevention programs) could qualify for opioid funds, but that architectural design work and a site‑specific feasibility study may not clearly fall within the MOU or council policy without additional justification. A city staff member told council the requested scope and procurement path raised “incredibly problematic” issues for moving funds immediately.

Next steps in the discussion included proposals for a council work session on recreation planning, suggestions that a city‑commissioned feasibility study (procured by the city) would be the appropriate first step, and repeated calls to review the West Virginia First Fund memorandum to determine allowable uses. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn and council calling for a vote; the transcript ends as the vote was being called.

What remains unresolved: whether $25,000 in city opioid funds can legally be used to pay for the requested architectural renderings, what procurement path the city would follow if it commissions a feasibility or design contract, and whether the city will pursue a feasibility study that is owned by the city rather than by a private property owner or developer. Council members asked staff to clarify eligibility, procurement requirements and the precise conditions under which the city might partner with Village Square or otherwise support the project.