Developers seek IDB referral, sales‑tax pledge and on‑site sewer MOU for Eastport Farms; board asks staff to draft documents with caveats

Developers of the proposed Eastport Farms project asked the Spring Hill Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Aug. 18 for an IDB referral and a preliminary memorandum of understanding to permit on‑site sewer treatment for portions of the proposed mixed‑use project.

Representatives from the development team—Jeff Pape (GBT Realty), Charlie Pond (Nyre Properties), consultant Rich Reebling and engineer Nathan McVay (T‑Squared Engineering)—presented a plan that has evolved over two years and now includes a significant retail anchor. The team said it has committed roughly $7.4 million to on‑site infrastructure and right‑of‑way dedication to support a proposed realignment of Jim Warren Road and improvements along the Port Royal corridor. The team said a remaining financing shortfall to complete corridor widening is in the low‑to‑mid millions and described a structure in which a portion of sales tax from the site could be pledged for up to 20 years to help pay bonds issued by an IDB.

Consultants explained two financing tools:

• Infrastructure Development Districts (IDDs)/assessments: non‑ad valorem assessments on lots in a new district that can be used by developers to finance public infrastructure via municipal bond issuance; assessments typically appear on property tax bills and are structured so the city’s general fund and bond rating are not pledged. The presenters said Wall Street purchasers typically seek a minimum financing scale (about $3 million) and broader lot counts for risk spread.

• IDB / sales‑tax pledge structure for a large retail anchor: consultants described a proposal to pledge a portion (presenters cited roughly 50% of the city’s half of local option sales tax from the development) for a fixed term (presenters suggested a 20‑year illustrative term) to secure bonds that would fund public improvements. Presenters said the city would retain a majority of projected local sales tax revenue in the period beyond what was pledged; they characterized the structure as off‑balance‑sheet (no city general‑fund pledge) if structured as presented.

On the sewer question, engineer Nathan McVay described a proposed on‑site advanced treatment and dispersal approach. The packet included two potential dispersal fields (yellow boxes on the plan) intended to serve different portions of the site; the team said budget and soils work remain preliminary. McVay said the design capacity assumptions in preliminary work assumed a 0.25 loading rate and estimated capacity in the packet on the order of tens of thousands of gallons per day (a board member referenced ~27,000 gpd during discussion). He and staff warned the board that a licensed soil scientist must certify final loading rates; if soils require larger dispersal areas the development team must adjust layout, reduce served build‑out or pursue alternatives.

Board discussion focused on three themes: traffic and corridor impacts (especially Port Royal and the Derryberry area), the need for clearer design commitments to produce high‑quality architecture and greenspace, and the sewer moratorium/connection constraints that prompted the on‑site approach. Several board members (including Alderman Fuquay and Vice Mayor Linville) said they were open to moving forward but wanted stronger assurances that off‑site improvements south of Derryberry would be addressed and that the proposed site plan produce community‑oriented public space rather than a sea of parking.

At the end of the work session discussion, Mayor Fitter asked whether staff should proceed to draft an IDB referral and an MOU based on the documents in the packet. Multiple members signaled yes; Vice Mayor Linville and at least one other member asked that staff pursue additional planning for improvements south of Derryberry and incorporate those concerns as caveats. The board did not take a final vote to approve any financing or taxation; instead the board provided direction to staff to prepare formal referral and MOU drafts for subsequent consideration, with the request that staff return with clearer language and terms addressing traffic improvements and sewer interconnection responsibilities.

Developers, staff and consultants said they will continue design and soils testing, and that the IDB referral (if ultimately approved) and any sales‑tax pledge would return to the board for formal approval later in the process. Staff cautioned that the IDB referral is not final approval of financing; it allows the IDB to evaluate a financing request and, if the IDB recommends issuance, the board would later take a separate approval vote.