Smarter Infrastructure Funding Strategies For Homebuilders

Adding up the new math of paying for growth

As U.S. homebuilders and residential developers continue to navigate high carrying costs, affordability headwinds, and cautious consumer sentiment, a strategic reckoning is underway. Teams are retooling cost models, tightening assumptions, and searching for every possible advantage—not just to make deals pencil out, but also to protect margins and unlock new long-term land value in an uncertain market.

Across the housing landscape—whether suburban expansion zones, exurban corridors, or infill pockets—local jurisdictions are stuck. Their roads, sewer systems, schools, and parks weren’t built for the population surges we’re seeing today. But public coffers are empty. So they’re turning to private developers and builders to pay up.

In the first two installments of this series, The Builder’s Daily explored how jurisdictional Fees—often the second-largest cost line on a development pro forma—can be proactively audited, restructured, and leveraged to enhance land residual value. Part I, “Avoiding the Entitlement Trap,” examined how early-stage due diligence and impact fee audits can root out fee overcharges and eliminate costly surprises. Part II, “How Developers Can Miss Millions In Infrastructure Recovery,” spotlighted how reframing builder Fees as levers for value creation—rather than fixed line items—can produce real, measurable improvements in take-down pricing and lot economics.

This third installment advances the playbook.

Suppose the first phase is ensuring that Fees are fair, accurate, and grounded in legal standards, and the second is structuring them to support project viability. In that case, the third lever is about recovering costs that benefit others—and not letting infrastructure burdens crush your project’s economics.

That means shifting infrastructure costs from single-site developers to broader beneficiary groups, structuring full-freight reimbursement mechanisms, and rigorously reducing or deferring spend until it’s genuinely needed.

The reasons for this are clear in our current operating context. Builders and developers operate on thinner margins than ever. With capital costs high, lot pipelines constrained, and affordability for buyers slipping, many builders ask a critical question: “Why are we fronting the bill for oversized infrastructure we may not even need today?”

That’s the dilemma Launch Development Finance Advisors (“Launch”) Managing Principal Carter Froelich tackles in this third installment of our five-part series. It centers on a compelling idea: infrastructure doesn’t always have to be paid up front—or by the first-mover alone. With the right strategies, developers can get others to help foot the bill.

Let’s break down how.

Think beyond the first mover

In a market where builders are constantly chasing velocity and margin preservation, burdening a single project with upfront costs for future infrastructure can make a viable deal to go underwater. Froelich points out that this trap is often avoidable.

“What we found is that with a little thought, investigation, and discussions with the jurisdiction, we could find means by which to lighten the financial load of the developer who was moving first.”

In other words, if you’re the developer of a 300-lot project in an undeveloped area, you shouldn’t have to eat the full cost of a road that is meant to serve 1,500 future lots.
So how do you avoid that fate?

“The first guy in doesn’t have to be the guy holding the bag,” notes Froelich. “With the right reimbursement structures and legal agreements, developers can set a foundation for growth that’s equitable, fundable, and efficient.”

Choose financing systems that work

While Froelich states that there are many ways to split the costs of large infrastructure burdens, two mechanisms that would work in the example above are the Special Assessment District (“SAD”) and reimbursement vehicles.

SAD Financing

Most states have some form of special assessment (“SAD”) district financing. A SAD issues tax-exempt bonds to fund the construction of public infrastructure; in this case, the road serves 1,800 units (300 + 1,500). In this example, the SAD bonds would encumber all of the land area comprising the 1,800 lots, with each landowner paying their fair share of the road costs over a 30-year time period. In our example, the builder of the 300-lot project is taking on only 16.67% (300 lots / 1,800 lots) of the road costs, rather than 100%, and waiting for reimbursement over time.

Reimbursement Vehicles

As a secondary approach, Froelich advocates formalizing a reimbursement structure early—before entitlements and well before any dirt is moved. He points out that many public jurisdictions already have policies on the books allowing for cost recovery. Still, they’re often underutilized, too short, or too loosely defined to be effective.

“Most public agencies have a reimbursement policy in place. They just are not well thought out, or they’re not enforced effectively.”

To make reimbursement vehicles work, developers and their consultants must document infrastructure oversizing and submit a capital improvement plan showing which elements will serve downstream developments. Then, a reimbursement agreement is put into place requiring future beneficiaries to pay their pro-rata share of the costs when they record a plat map, or pull a grading or building permit (whichever comes first) — not years later on a “onesie-twosie” basis as builders pull building permits — but all up front when development begins.

“We established a reimbursement mechanism that requires 100% payment of fair share costs (plus interest) at the recording of a plat or the pulling of a first construction permit, whichever comes first.”

This puts big chunks of money back into the hands of the builder who ventured to take the risk early on—and it makes the system fairer and more sustainable for everyone.

Reduce, defer, and phase intelligently

Beyond reimbursement, Froelich emphasizes that the need actually to build infrastructure can often be reduced or deferred.

“We’re saying to the jurisdiction, ‘ let’s reduce, eliminate, and/or defer the construction of infrastructure until it’s needed.’”

That means aligning improvements with phasing plans and actual user demands—not building a full arterial or stormwater facility when only 20% of the project is being developed. It also means re-evaluating assumptions baked into old development agreements with the jurisdiction, especially when the size or timing of development has shifted due to macroeconomic conditions.

This isn’t about cutting corners. Instead, it’s about optimizing cash flow and reducing carrying costs for capital-intensive improvements that could well sit idle for years.

Button up the legal framework

These strategies only work if they’re codified in airtight agreements. Froelich stresses the importance of drafting development agreements and outlining what regional infrastructure will have to be constructed, and how that infrastructure will be phased. For instance, constructing two lanes of a six-lane regional arterial road until traffic counts warrant additional lanes, or specifying what, if any, infrastructure must be oversized and how the oversizing costs will be paid, preferably by the jurisdiction.

One tactic? Embed enforceable language and contracts into the development agreement itself:

“I wrote what we call the CFD Development Agreement, which was included as an Exhibit to the project’s Development Agreement,” Froelich notes regarding one recent case example. The language in the Development Agreement stated that, “at the sole discretion and request of the Developer, the City agrees to establish one or more CFD pursuant to the terms outlined in the CFD Development Agreement attached as Exhibit C.” Froelich adds, Exhibit C was a fully executable CFD Development Agreement.”

Another approach? Create what’s known as a development impact fee (“DIF”) “benefit area” that lays out the area-wide infrastructure, lists the benefitting land areas, and establishes statutorily required DIFs to be paid as builders are pulling building permits. Thus, everyone eventually pays their fair share of regional infrastructure costs.

Homebuilder associations, homebuilders, and developers must take the lead here. Jurisdictions often lack the resources or urgency to do this themselves—but they’re usually willing to bless the structure if the private sector initiates it.

Incentivize the right behavior

Ultimately, these mechanisms and details are not just technical tools—they’re levers for fairness, speed, and market confidence.

Without them, developers are punished for going first, capital is tied up for years, and critical projects risk stalling out. With them, private capital flows more freely, cities get their infrastructure sooner, and end-homebuyer residents aren’t stuck paying hidden costs inflated by inefficiency.

Froelich offers a real-world example to show how this plays out:

“We had a 4,700-unit master planned community that had huge public infrastructure costs; only a portion of which were being funded by the special taxing district. To generate additional reimbursements, we prepared a DIF benefit area that was intended to repay the developer for regional infrastructure costs not funded by the special district. As a result, we were able to bring the developer an additional $18,500 per unit in public improvement reimbursements through DIF, which were paid by builders at building permit.”

In a high-interest-rate world, cash timing is everything. And the burden of funding infrastructure—while unavoidable—is no longer insurmountable if shared smartly.

Take action

For developers currently sitting on land, the calls to action are clear:

• Evaluate Oversizing and Regional Infrastructure Cost Risks Early: During the pro forma stage, flag which infrastructure will serve others beyond your parcel.
• Push for Development Agreements and/or Reimbursement Agreements with Teeth: Don’t rely on handshake deals or vague city memos—codify the mechanisms and timing.
• Phase Smarter, Build Less Up Front: Especially in softening markets, align construction with absorption and defer costs/infrastructure when possible.
• Work with Cities, Not Against Them: Most jurisdictions want housing and appreciate proactive proposals—bring them a plan.

Stay tuned

For developers and builders navigating today’s tighter pro formas, the path to protecting land residuals isn’t just about negotiating down fees or delaying infrastructure—it’s about architecting structures that ensure other beneficiaries share in the cost. As we’ve seen, tools like development agreements, reimbursement agreements, deferral schedules, and special districts, when formalized early and backed by precise legal and accounting frameworks, can tilt deal math back in your favor.

Next in this series, we’ll go deeper into those very structures—namely, the powerful role of Special Purpose Taxing Districts. From Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) to Metropolitan Districts and CDDs, these vehicles unlock the ability to convert long-term value creation into upfront capital, aligning public benefit with private feasibility.

We’ll conclude the package by examining what happens when these strategies are not isolated efforts but consistently repeated, embedded, and aggregated across multiple projects. This is when institutionalization takes hold—transforming the practice of land residual optimization into a structural advantage that consistently turns potential deals into outperformers.