Amherst County hears Gateway sewer-extension update as supervisors debate $2.5 million bond

At the Jan. 6 meeting, the Amherst County Board of Supervisors received a status update on the Gateway sewer-extension project and sharply questioned whether county taxpayers should continue to back a $2.5 million short-term bond tied to the development.

Mister Castillo presented the project, saying it was intended "to correct sewer issues for current authority customers along River Road and to provide public sewer services in areas currently not served but designated to be served under the Madison Heights master plan." He outlined design changes and value engineering that reduced an original multi‑million‑dollar estimate to a much smaller figure: after redesign and bid savings, the project estimate was shown in the presentation at about $1.9 million.

The presentation described a three-part scope: a pump station, a force main to Route 163, and a force main along Route 210 to the authority’s interceptor on Main Street. A phase of the work under contract — a road bore under Route 163 and associated force-main installation — is underway with contract work around $351,000 and scheduled for completion this month, the presenter said. The packet and slides also described opportunities to repurpose used pumping stations, eliminate trenching by road bores and remove some contingency costs to reduce price.

Board members and staff reviewed funding for the work. The county previously backed a $2.5 million bond anticipation note issued in May 2023, with a payout date in March 2026 and an interest rate discussed near 3.98%. Other funding sources cited included roughly $1 million in ARPA funds and a roughly $500,000 grant identified in the presentation. The presenter said some principal has been invested in a state non‑arbitrage program and that an interest fund balance would offset part of debt-service costs.

The board debated whether to continue shouldering the $2.5 million exposure if the private developer — repeatedly referenced in the discussion as Mr. Morecambe — has not produced building permits or a final site plan. Vice Chair Chris Adams pressed for clarity and quicker action, saying the board should not continue to carry debt for a development that has not advanced: "I'm not gonna continue to be paying debt on money that we're not gonna use." Other members noted the project began as an economic-development effort and that some of the ARPA and grant funds are tied to specific deadlines.

County staff and the presenter characterized options being considered: defeasing the bond (removing the county’s exposure), holding the bond while the authority seeks long-term financing only if needed, or returning ARPA funds to avoid missing spending deadlines on unrelated projects. The board asked Finance Director Mister Bryant to return at the first February meeting with options and numbers to clarify whether the county should "turn the bond in" or pursue other alternatives.

No formal vote to tap or relinquish the $2.5 million bond was taken at the meeting. The board’s next procedural step on the matter is the February meeting when the finance director will present financial scenarios and recommendations.

For now, construction activity on the force main and road-bore work continues, and county officials said they will monitor the developer’s progress on site plans and permits before committing additional county-backed long-term funding.