Onancock council debates loan and repairs for Historic Onancock School; directs engineering bids

The Onancock Town Council on Sept. 23 spent substantial time weighing whether to support repairs and a potential loan for the Historic Onancock School, with residents and councilmembers split on who should pay for capital work.

The most immediate outcome was not a loan but a directive: the council asked Town Manager Matt Spuck to solicit bids for structural and mechanical engineering assessments to clarify priorities and costs. Councilmember Joy Marino specifically requested an engineer report to help prioritize repairs, and the body instructed staff to obtain bids.

Why it matters: public commenters and council members framed the HOS question as both a financial and cultural decision. Rosemary Paparo, who said she participates in the Onancock Resident’s Group (ORG) but was speaking for herself, said that “ORG has never advocated to close HOS, but they do not seem to be financially viable,” and cited recurring expenses the town currently covers, including an almost $10,000 property-insurance line for FY2025. Geoff Daking urged the council to examine the lease’s unclear allocation of capital responsibility and described it as a “fuzzy” lease; he cited the Virginia property maintenance code, section 103.2, in arguing the owner generally must maintain building systems unless the lease explicitly provides otherwise.

Council discussion focused on immediate risk and longer-term responsibility. Councilmember Paul Weitzel asked whether quoted prices included oil-boiler removal and whether a buried tank could become a future liability; he recommended a comprehensive engineering assessment. Councilmember Sarah Nock said winter is approaching and emphasized the need for a bridge solution if the boiler fails. Councilmember Maphis Oswald read advice from the town attorney and said the lawyer recommended against partnering with FOS on loans; she said there are alternative loan routes and that the town taking over HOS as a parks-and-recreation responsibility was worth considering.

Town attorney Eric Gregory’s written advice, provided to council via email and read into the record by staff, said, in part, “I would recommend against partnering with FOS on any loans or borrowings because it could and likely would get problematic if FOS were unable to make payments or otherwise comply with the terms of the arrangement.” That email also noted the lease contains provisions about Rehabilitation and Development and Maintenance that assign many responsibilities to FOS.

Public proposals and concerns were varied. Dr. Greg Felthousen submitted a written proposal recommending the town void the current lease, consider taking ownership, use town reserves for temporary "band-aid" repairs, and craft a long-term plan for the building’s future as a regional arts-and-environment center. Some commenters pushed the council to increase oversight, require clearer lease terms, and prohibit resale or long-term subleasing of improvement-funded spaces.

What the council did: the meeting produced no formal loan approval or vote to transfer ownership. The formal, recorded action was a direction for staff to obtain engineering bids (structural and mechanical) to produce clearer cost estimates and priorities. Several councilmembers expressed support for using town resources if necessary; Councilmember Cindy Holdren said she was open to the town covering loan payments to avoid immediate closure of building spaces.

Next steps: staff will solicit bids for structural and mechanical assessments to guide a future council decision. Councilmembers discussed other funding avenues, including EDA-conduit borrowing or DHCD grants, and the town’s preliminary grant application on historic-preservation projects advanced to the next stage of grant writing.

The council reconvened after a closed-session personnel review and adjourned at 10:15 p.m.