Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Welcome Center Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises questions as Ravenswood tables Welcome Center lease with Smokehouse Pavilion
Summary
Council tabled the Welcome Center/Incubator lease with Smokehouse Pavilion after public commenters asked about equipment responsibility, parking, possible alcohol in parks and whether required legal notice was published; the council allowed comments from citizens before tabling.
Get email alerts on the Welcome Center Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Ravenswood’s Common Council on April 21 tabled consideration of a lease and resolution to place the Welcome Center/Incubator under a proposed agreement with Smokehouse Pavilion, after multiple attendees raised procedural and substantive questions.
Todd Ritchie moved and Jeff Koon seconded a motion to table the public hearing and lease resolution; the motion carried. Because members of the public were present specifically for the hearing, Mayor Josh Miller allowed those attendees to make public comments at the meeting.
Resident Connie Dunlap asked a series of operational and legal questions about the proposal: "Who would be responsible for equipment & furnishings? Will it be part of the park? How big will it be? Where is parking for restaurant?" She told the council she had reviewed the West Virginia State Code concerning municipal leasing and had contacted the Ethics Commission. Other commenters raised additional concerns: Mark Friend urged more vetting of family income disclosures related to the proposal; Gary Lawson asked whether City ordinances restricting alcohol in parks had been changed. Paul Icenhower questioned the financial return, saying it "will cost a lot of money to only be getting $2,000/month."
Bob Staats submitted a written attachment about the lease (included with the meeting record) and a number of attendees asked the council to confirm whether a Class I legal advertisement had been published to notify the public as required under state law; the written record from Staats asserts the notice may not have been published. The council did not act on the lease and instructed staff to return with further information and, per the meeting record, proof of required notice before further consideration.
Next procedural steps recorded in the minutes include rescheduling the hearing; council directed staff to provide required documentation and lease details when the item returns to the agenda.
