Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gateway Project Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident criticizes Amherst County spending on Gateway Project; says developer commitments absent
Summary
A District 5 resident told the board he was disappointed the county has committed $3.5 million to the Gateway Project without formal written assurances from the developer, and cited recent Service Authority actions and contracts.
Get email alerts on the Gateway Project Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
John A. Marks Jr., a District 5 resident, told the Amherst County Board of Supervisors that he was "terribly disappointed" in how the board has handled the Gateway Project and urged greater accountability before spending taxpayer funds.
Marks said a review of board and Service Authority records led him to conclude the board had committed $3.5 million of taxpayer money to the Gateway Project without obtaining a formal written commitment from the developer. He told the board that, as of the June 11, 2025 Service Authority meeting, project funding was not secured; he quoted a Service Authority response as "we are working on it." Marks also said the board had no approved site plan, no schedule for the project and no record that the Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to spend the money.
Marks said the Service Authority voted on June 11 to execute a contract with Tony Construction for "project number 3" of the Gateway Project for $351,800, that a notice of award was issued to Tony Construction on June 17, 2025, and that in July 2025 a signed contract and required bonding were received from Tony Construction for that project number. All of those assertions were presented by Marks as findings from his review of meeting minutes, Service Authority records and documents.
Marks asked why the board had not required a written assurance such as a schedule or memorandum of understanding from the developer before the county committed funds. His remarks were delivered during the citizen comment period and were not followed by formal board action during the meeting.

