This piece lists, in full, the public records this outlet has formally requested from the Town of Lake Lure under North Carolina's Public Records Law, plus the questions we've put directly to the Mayor, the Town Council, and Town staff for on-the-record comment. We're publishing the complete asks — not a summary — so readers can judge for themselves whether they're reasonable, and so the Town's response (or continued silence) can be measured against something specific.

Over the past two weeks, this outlet has sent two formal public records requests to the Town of Lake Lure, plus direct requests for comment to Mayor Carol Pritchett and every sitting Commissioner. The first records request went out August 26. A follow-up, expanding the request and adding a formal comment ask, went out September 4. As of this writing, neither the Town Clerk, the Town Attorney, nor any Council member has acknowledged, responded to, or provided a cost estimate for any part of either request.

We think readers deserve to see exactly what's been asked — not a paraphrase — so there's no ambiguity about what "the Town isn't responding" actually refers to.

First, the basics: what a public records request even is

North Carolina's Public Records Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1 et seq.) gives every person — not just journalists — the right to inspect and get copies of most records made or received by a government agency in the course of public business. That includes emails, text messages, and other electronic communications, regardless of whether they were sent from a government account or a personal one, as long as they concern public business. Agencies are required to provide access "as promptly as possible." There's no fixed statutory deadline, which is part of why follow-up matters: the law expects diligence, not a specific number of days.

Some categories of records are exempt — attorney-client privileged communications, personnel files, active criminal investigations, and confidential mediation communications under a separate statute (G.S. 7A-38.1) are the ones most relevant here. Our request accounts for those exemptions directly: where we expect something might be withheld, we've asked the Town to say so specifically, rather than simply leave it out.

What we asked for, and why

Below is the substance of every category in both requests, grouped by topic rather than listed in raw numbered order, with our reasoning for each one stated plainly.

Who talked to whom, and when

Council-to-Council communications. Every email, text, or other written communication among Mayor Pritchett, Mayor Pro Tem David DiOrio, and Commissioners Patrick Bryant, Scott Doster, and Jim Proctor that mentions Second Mountain, the lease, the boathouse, the eviction case, or the lawsuit — from January 1, 2025 to present.

Council communications with staff and counsel. The same, but between any of those five officials and Town Manager Olivia Stewman, Community Development Director Mike Williams, Town Attorney Marty Benson, outside counsel Robert C. Carpenter, or any other department head.

Why we're asking: This outlet's reporting has found no public record of the Council ever formally voting to pursue default, termination, or eviction against Second Mountain — the process appears, from everything published so far, to have been run by staff and outside counsel. NC's public records law reaches informal and personal-device communications, not just official meeting minutes, so this is the most direct way to find out whether that decision was actually discussed and authorized by elected officials, and if so, when.

Did anyone actually vote on this?

Council authorization records. Any resolution, motion, minutes, agenda item, or closed-session account showing Council discussion, authorization, or ratification of the decision to pursue default or termination, to reject settlement terms discussed between December 2025 and February 2026, or to file the eviction action.

Unpublished meeting minutes. Draft or approved minutes for every Council meeting — regular, special, work session, or closed-session account — held between July 27, 2026 and the date of our request, none of which were published on the Town's website at the time we asked.

Why we're asking: This is the single biggest open question in this whole story. Resolution No. 26-08-28, which surfaced publicly for the first time in this week's meeting packet, shows the Council ratifying the termination on August 28 — after the fact, and conditioned on a settlement offer failing. We want the full paper trail showing whether, and when, elected officials weighed in before that point, not just after.

The boathouse photos question

Police and Fire Department records. Incident reports, patrol logs, dispatch logs, and any photo or evidence log referencing the police boathouse from October 1, 2025 to present, plus any communications between police leadership and Town officials about directing or discussing photographs taken at or near the boathouse.

Why we're asking: We've heard a specific, unverified claim about how and why photographs of the boathouse were taken and by whom they were requested. We haven't published that claim because we can't confirm it — this request is how we try to confirm or rule it out, using the Town's own records rather than anyone's secondhand account.

What happened during mediation

Mediation-day communications (August 14, 2026). Text messages, call logs, and emails involving Town Manager Stewman that day, covering roughly 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., where the other party was the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, any other Council member, or anyone not physically present at the mediation — including a request that Town officials search personal devices, since public-business communications remain public records regardless of what device they're sent from. Where content is withheld as privileged, we've asked for a log showing at minimum who was in contact, when, by what method, and for how long.

Mediation logistics. Scheduling records, engagement letters, and invoices showing who represented the Town at the August 14 mediation — not the substance of what was discussed, which we understand is confidential under state law, just who was in the room.

Why we're asking: Similarly, we've heard an unverified account describing frequent contact between the Town Manager and officials who weren't at the table during that day's mediation session. We're not reporting that account as fact. We are asking for records that would show, one way or another, how much contact actually occurred — because a seven-hour mediation session is supposed to be a negotiation between two sides, not a proxy conversation.

Second Mountain's own request, and the FEMA question

Second Mountain's prior records request. A copy of the public records request Paul Brock or Second Mountain submitted to the Town around March 10, 2026, and whatever the Town produced or said in response.

FEMA and demolition communications. Internal Town records, and any communications with FEMA, state emergency management, or engineers or contractors, about whether the boathouse actually required demolition — including records tied to specific statements Town Manager Stewman made to Paul Brock in December 2025 and February 2026.

Why we're asking: The Town's own sworn court filings already admit that an earlier belief the boathouse had to be demolished was based on "a misunderstanding of complex FEMA regulations." We want the underlying paper trail on how that belief formed and how it was corrected — and we want to see what the Town told Second Mountain's own records request, since a business asking its landlord "can I see how you reached this decision" is a reasonable thing to answer.

Following the money

Legal billing. Invoices and engagement letters from the Town's outside law firm, Allen Stahl + Kilbourne, related to this matter, from January 1, 2025 to present. We've asked for dates, amounts, and general matter descriptions — not privileged narrative detail.

Why we're asking: This dispute has now generated a lawsuit, a separate eviction case, a mediation, multiple settlement rounds, and — per the Town's own meeting minutes — nearly three clocked hours of closed-session Council time. Legal bills are a straightforward, apolitical way to measure what this has actually cost taxpayers so far, regardless of how anyone feels about who's right.

The petition, and what's changed since

The August 26 petition transmittal. A copy of the petition and comments this outlet understands were forwarded to every Commissioner and the Mayor on the morning of August 26, along with whatever email or memo accompanied it.

Renewed settlement talks. Communications and draft documents since August 26 between the Town's attorneys and Second Mountain's counsel about a revised lease, changes to the boathouse clause, or other settlement terms — including any draft language, term sheets, or summaries shared with the Town Manager or Council.

Council briefing on new terms. Any record showing the Council was briefed, in open or closed session, on those renewed talks — specifically including whether the actual rent amount, not just the boathouse clause, has been part of the discussion.

September 3 hearing records. Internal communications or Council briefings about the small-claims eviction hearing, including whether the Town intends to proceed with, continue, or drop that case given the renewed talks.

Lake Lure Gym / Suite B records. Communications about Lake Lure Gym's lease and rent situation in the building's other suite since October 1, 2025, including any proposal for a separate "clean" lease for that space, any Town response to it, and any communication suggesting Lake Lure Gym would be on the hook for part of Lured Market's rent as a condition of keeping its own space.

Why we're asking: These are the newest threads in the story, and the ones most likely to actually resolve this dispute one way or another. If real settlement talks are happening, the public — including Lake Lure Gym, a separate small business whose lease may be tangled up in the outcome — deserves to know the shape of what's on the table, not just whether a hearing got continued again.

The six questions we've also asked, directly, for comment

Separately from the records request itself, we've formally asked the Town Clerk, the Town Attorney, and — individually — the Mayor and every Commissioner to go on the record on six specific questions:

1. Has the Council ever voted, in open or closed session, to authorize pursuing default, termination, or eviction? If so, when? If not, under what authority was the decision made?
2. What are the Town's actual plans for 2654 Memorial Highway, given Mayor Pritchett's own statement that the Town has "no intent for the use of that building"?
3. Are the Town's attorneys and Second Mountain's attorney now in direct settlement talks over a revised lease?
4. Is the monthly rent itself under discussion in those talks, or only the boathouse clause?
5. What's the actual status of Lake Lure Gym's lease, and did the Town ever receive or reject a proposal to give that business its own separate lease?
6. Who represented the Town at the August 14 mediation, and can the Town describe, in general terms, what it offered?

None of the five elected officials, the Town Attorney, or the Town Clerk has answered any of these on the record as of publication.

What happens next

We asked the Town to at least confirm receipt of these requests and give us a status update — even a partial one — by September 11. We'll report whatever comes back, in full, the same way we've laid out the requests here. If nothing comes back by then, that's its own answer, and we'll say so plainly.

Lake Lure Insider will update this piece the moment any of the above is answered, in whole or in part.

Last updated: 2026-09-08