Resident says county spent $3.5 million on Gateway Project without developer commitments

John A. Marks Jr., a District 5 resident, told the Amherst County Board of Supervisors during the public-comment period that he was “terribly disappointed” in how the board has handled the Gateway Project and urged greater formal commitments from the developer before taxpayer money is spent.

Marks said that, based on a review of board minutes, Service Authority minutes, and public records, the board has committed $3.5 million of county money to the Gateway Project but has no formal written commitment from the developer — such as a schedule or memorandum of understanding — that would guarantee the developer will complete the project. “I know the board of supervisors has committed 3 and a half million dollars of taxpayer money to the Gateway Project. I know the board of supervisors has no formal written commitment from the developer,” Marks said.

Marks also described the project as lacking an approved site plan and a schedule. He reported that at the June 11, 2025 Service Authority meeting, when asked whether a developer had secured project funding, the response was “we are working on it,” which he interpreted to mean funding was not secured as of that date. “So the answer is project funding was not secured as of 06/11/2025 for the Gateway Project,” Marks said.

Marks further identified procurement activity tied to the project: he said the Service Authority voted on June 11, 2025, to execute a contract with Tony Construction for “project number 3” for $351,800; a notice of award was issued on June 17, 2025; and in July 2025 the county received a signed contract and required bonding from Tony Construction for that project element. Marks said it “disturbs” him that taxpayer funds were being spent while the board lacked a written commitment from the developer and that he found no record that the board itself had been involved in the decision to spend that money given the board’s prior stated intention to wait for developer assurances.

The board did not take action in response to Marks’s remarks during the public-comment period and no board member made a formal response on the record in the transcript excerpt. The claims and document dates Marks cited were presented as his review of public records and minutes.

Why it matters: Marks framed his comments as a concern about county oversight and fiscal prudence. Absent a developer commitment or an approved site plan, he argued, county taxpayers face financial exposure while details about what will be built, how many units, and the project schedule remain unspecified.

What remains unresolved: Marks’s remarks raise questions about (1) whether the $3.5 million commitment is reflected in board resolutions or budget documents; (2) what the county’s procurement and approval process was for the Tony Construction contract for project number 3; and (3) whether the Service Authority’s authority and the board’s involvement in approving expenditures were consistent with public expectations. Those details were not resolved in the meeting transcript.