Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates Armistad Infrastructure Development District as staff cites shortfall on housing and value targets
Summary
City staff recommended against creating an Armistad infrastructure district because the application met only the design pillar fully and lacked measurable commitments on attainable housing and infrastructure funding; the developer proposed targeting some tiny‑home units to workforce households and offered phased financing options to bridge a 2:1 vs. 3:1 value‑to‑lien concern.
City staff told the board the Armistad application met the city’s policy for "extraordinary benefit and quality development" but did not sufficiently document measurable commitments on three other policy pillars — attainable housing, infrastructure enhancement and redevelopment — and therefore recommended against granting an Infrastructure Development (ID) district as submitted.
Michael Walters Young, chief budget and performance officer, said staff’s fiscal analysis produced recurring and one‑time local revenue but that the project as submitted did not meet the policy’s preferred 3:1 value‑to‑lien ratio, instead penciling to roughly 2:1 based on the materials provided. "Given what we have tonight ... we would not be able to recommend it from a staff perspective," he said.
Craig Hoover, managing member of Armistad TN LLC, and consultant Phil Hunt said the project preserves more than half the site as open space, programs the historic farm for public access and proposes an extensive trail network and agricultural programming. Hoover said the development "is intended to be a lasting community asset" and argued the ID is a financing mechanism wholly supported by benefited property, not taxpayers.
Board members voiced mixed reactions. Some praised Armistad’s design and community engagement and urged flexibility so the project could be a precedent for local, smaller developers. Others stressed that staff analysis applied the adopted policy consistently and urged the developer to return with measurable commitments on workforce housing and clearer pathways to the city’s preferred 3:1 ratio. Phil Hunt suggested a compromise financing approach that issues bonds at 2:1 with a cash reserve until 3:1 is achieved.
Staff and the applicant agreed to continue negotiations; aldermen encouraged the developer to firm up attainable‑housing commitments (applicant mentioned potentially targeting up to 50% of tiny homes to households at up to 120% AMI) and to work with staff on covenant language and financial structuring for reconsideration at a future meeting.
