Developers, bonds and roads: Cherryville council hears update on True Home site and Main Street bond balances

Council members discussed an impending development by True Home on the former house-wrap property and reviewed available bond funds and infrastructure capacity.

A council member reported receiving an engineer—s email from True Home and said the developer appears likely to begin site clearing soon. Council members said Phase 1 along U.S. 150 was expected to be commercial, but the developer may adjust the site plan; some lots at the rear of the property will be served by the city—s power system while other lots would be separately served by an RDA system, the council was told.

Council members asked whether the city—s water and sewer mains would support the development. A staff member said the mains are sufficient and that the system currently operates at roughly half of its capacity. The council asked to schedule a face-to-face meeting with True Home—s engineers and the city engineer to align utility and access plans.

Council members also discussed use of Main Street bond proceeds. The auditor noted about $616,030 remains in Main Street bond funds and council members said the bonds have been used for sidewalks and other eligible Main Street projects. Councilmembers discussed the need to spend bond proceeds on eligible projects to avoid potential federal interest/repayment issues for unused bond funds. One council member said the city expects to allocate about $160,000 of bond funds to complete work at the Larry and Carolyn Sumner Recreation Complex gym floor when the contractor—s work finishes.

The council also reviewed recent road repairs. Officials said two long-standing projects on Pink Street and Hacken Drive were completed; council discussion said one of those repairs ended up costing about $180,000 once failing pipeline, poor soil and new sidewalks were factored in and more than 100 loads of fill dirt were required. Council members identified ongoing patching needs on First Street tied to recent school plumbing work and asked the county to address some sections that lie within county responsibility.

Council members reiterated that an apartment project under discussion is income-based (not Section 8) and that the developer models the planned complex on a previously built property in Charlotte. A council member said the developer builds similar complexes across the Southeast.

No formal votes were required on the development update; council members asked staff to meet with the developer—s engineers and prepare any required utility or access plans for the proposed work.