Commissioners pause approval of $8.77 million performance bond for 7 Rivers PUD, ask for risk‑reduction plan
Loading...
Summary
The Columbus County Board of Commissioners took up a request to accept an $8,769,036.89 performance bond for the 7 Rivers PUD (formerly McGill Meadows) and voted to hold the item until staff returns with options to reduce county risk, including phasing or minimum on‑site improvements.
Planning Director Kelsey Hammons brought a request to accept a performance bond for the 7 Rivers planned unit development, asking the board to approve a bond of $8,769,036.89 to cover improvements for phases 1A and 1B so the developer could pursue vertical building permits.
The board’s discussion centered on county exposure if the developer defaulted, the sufficiency of the estimate and whether the bond could be split by phase or conditioned on certain infrastructure being completed first. Anchor Point Planning consultant Ron Satterfield told commissioners the engineer’s estimate included a 25% contingency to account for inflation and other escalation in costs. He also explained the bond would allow the county to compel the surety to provide funds to finish improvements in case of default.
Multiple commissioners questioned whether the county would be left liable if construction costs rose above the bond amount, and whether the developer should be required to install some critical infrastructure before the county accepts a performance bond. One commissioner said, “I personally have a problem obligating to that $8,700,000 and nothing has been put in the ground,” expressing concern about taxpayer exposure. Staff noted state law permits counties to require performance bonds for development and that the county’s ordinance allows a developer to request bonding for improvements.
Planning staff and the county attorney explained that accepting a bond would permit the developer to begin vertical construction if the final plat is approved, even where some on‑site improvements remain incomplete, which creates an incentive for developers to secure bonding to move forward. Commissioners pressed for alternatives such as issuing bonds in smaller increments tied to phased work, requiring certain utilities be installed first, or otherwise reducing the county’s risk.
On a motion to defer final acceptance and for staff to return with options and a proposal to reduce county risk, the board voted to hold the item and asked staff for a follow‑up by the Jan. 20 meeting. The motion passed by voice vote.
The board did not approve the bond tonight; next steps are a staff report with proposed conditions, phasing options or ordinance changes to limit county liability before any final acceptance.
