Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southern Land pitches Infrastructure Development Districts for Nolensville; commissioners press for protections
Summary
At the Jan. 29 Nolensville work session, Southern Land Company explained how newly authorized infrastructure development districts (IDDs) can finance upfront infrastructure through bonds and property assessments; commissioners raised questions about homeowner assessments, loss of impact fees and legal uncertainty and asked for more education before any application is considered.
Ron Scribe of Southern Land Company told the Nolensville Board of Commissioners on Jan. 29 that infrastructure development districts, or IDDs, are a financing tool that can allow developers to fund infrastructure up front rather than relying on the town's bonding capacity. “It allows developers to fund the infrastructure upfront and excess cash capital to build necessary infrastructure,” Scribe said.
Scribe and his colleagues described two common bond structures — construction bonds (money held in trust for pay‑as‑built drawdowns) and reimbursement bonds (where infrastructure is built first and bonds reimburse the developer). A developer representative said the money would typically sit in a trustee account to protect the town and future phases if a developer fails to complete later work.
Multiple commissioners said they were intrigued by the ability to accelerate development or help fund off‑site projects such as parks or a police station, but they pressed Southern Land on who ultimately pays. “Because you said it does not impact our debt limit, but it ultimately ends up being debt we pass through down to the homeowners,” one commissioner said, summarizing concerns about special assessments that will be levied only on property inside the district.
Developers and consultants said assessments are fixed for the district and assessed only to property within the IDD, and that the statutory 5% allowance for administration is typically sufficient for municipal costs. “That’s typically more than enough to see,” a development consultant said, adding that IDDs are generally considered for larger projects where a minimum scale (about $3 million in improvements) makes the mechanism practical.
Board members repeatedly requested greater clarity on several points before any application arrives: the effect on town impact‑fee revenue, the legal status of exactions under Tennessee law, the town’s ability to require preidentified public benefits, and examples of how other Tennessee municipalities are handling IDDs. Mayor and staff urged commissioners to review materials posted by Franklin and to send specific questions to staff so developers can return with tailored responses.
Southern Land said the company is pursuing IDD proposals for developments that are already progressing and that timing matters: the longer a project advances without an IDD, the fewer units remain in scope for district assessments. Developers urged transparency and disclosures to buyers, noting that similar special districts are common in other states.
Next steps: the board asked staff and developers to continue education, and Southern Land signaled it may bring a formal petition in keeping with statutory timelines. Commissioners said they would expect policy criteria or a town policy to guide future decisions and that any formal application would trigger the required public hearing and review process.
